If we’re needing to get rid of it, we should at least know what it is. What is Protestantism?
At the end of the 15th century and the beginning of the 16th century, the Roman Catholic church held almost complete power over the governments, churches, and lives of the West. Heroic men like Jan Huus, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, and John Wycliffe courageously stood against that power because the Roman Catholic Church had been abusing their power by enacting & teaching serious errors for centuries. These men and other paragons, who were committed to the truth of the Bible, protested against the corruption of Rome. Their collective movement became known as the Protestant Reformation. This movement reformed Christianity to its 1st century roots, which focused on Jesus, the Bible, and God’s glory rather than what Rome had been preaching: indulgences, Mariology, and worldly power. Today, the branch of Christianity that is committed the Bible as the highest authority is known as Protestantism. But this post is not about the history of the Reformation or of the steady corruption of the Roman Catholic Church.
Simple. It’s a rebrand. 500 years ago, it was distinctive to be known by which theological tradition one held in relation to the Roman Catholic Church. Today, Protestants have no interest in being identified by their rejection of the ecclesiastical structure of the Vatican. We need to replace the moniker of Protestantism with:
Scripturian
Why did the reformers push to leave the Roman Catholic Church? Because Rome had left the authority of God’s eternal word for ecclesial authority. Scripturians recognize the authority of the Bible as preeminent. We should be identified by what we believe as distinctive and not from whom we once split 500 years ago.
Why not simply Christian? Good question. Yes, as the Apostle Paul said over and over in his epistles, our identity is “in Christ”. But the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox also claim this title. What makes Scripturians distinct from the Vatican and Byzantium is that we regard the Bible as our authority. While Rome seemingly prefers to be known by their statues of Mary, Scripturians prefer to be known by SOLA SCRIPTURA.
When Jesus questioned the reigning theological powers of his day with: “Have you not read…?” He was explicitly declaring that God’s Word is the authority to which the lacking shepherds (Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes) SHOULD have submitted rather than their worldly traditions. The Roman Catholic church should listen to Jesus. They should submit to the Word of God rather than their worldly traditions.
Thankfully, there are many Christian teachings that both Roman Catholics and Scripturians can unite, but the reasons that I am not a Roman Catholic are because of the significant unbiblical errors that the Vatican teaches.
So, let’s unite in this rebranding. Let’s get rid of Protestantism and embrace what truly identifies us as distinct: God’s Eternal Word captured in scripture. We are Scripturians because we want to be identified as believers in what God has revealed in the Bible. Roman Catholics could rebrand as Mariologists, or Papists, or Indulgencians because those are the things that identify them as distinct within Christendom
It will be a shock to no one that the Reformed Church and Roman Catholics disagree about authority. While the Reformed Church accepts the revelation of the Almighty in the Bible, the Roman Catholics hold to a splintered authority structure that gives the Magisterium/Vatican, Catholic traditions, and the Bible to have equal authority over matters of faith and practice.
This difference was highlighted in the fall of 2025 when the Bishop of Rome, Leo XIV, addressed a question about rewarding an American Democratic Senator, who has a notorious record for supporting the murder of unborn children. Rather than chastising the supposedly Catholic senator for pushing a platform that is obviously against the teachings of the Vatican, Roman traditions, and the Bible, the Pope completely capitulated to Leftist ideology by answering: “I think that is very important to look at the overall work that this Senator has done during…40 years of service…Someone that says they are against abortion but says they are in favor of the death penalty is not really pro-life.” Ignoring the fact that the Pope equivocated the just punishment of a criminal with the unjust murder of the unborn, the Pope’s comments (correctly) raised the hackles of many self-professing Catholics, who do indeed hold to a pro-life position.
This brings up the crux of the disagreement between the Reformed and the Roman: By what standard can a Catholic disagree with the Vatican? If the person that they believe is God’s Vicar on Earth (or any priest/bishop/cardinal in Roman Catholicism) makes a declaration that is in disagreement with the Bible, how can a mere Catholic disagree?
Let’s analyze this response to see if it is valid or confusion:
“I know a bishop or priest is in error when he contradicts the teaching authority of the Church”
Unfortunately for Catholics, the bishops/priests/cardinals ARE the representatives of the Roman Catholic Church. A Catholic has no authority to which to appeal to criticize the teaching authority of Rome because the bishops and priests ARE the teaching authority of the Vatican. In this case, the bishop of Rome (Pope) is (according to them) Christ’s vicar on Earth. They believe he is the supreme authority over the Roman Catholics because he is supposed to be the representative of Christ Himself. So, if a Catholic doesn’t like something that the Pope says – too bad! They have nothing higher to appeal to than Christ’s representative. If they believe that the pope is mistaken (according to their OWN beliefs), they need to change themselves, because the pope represents the church and Christ Himself. To disagree with the Vicar of Christ is to reject their own beliefs
In the never ending debate between the Reformed and the Romans, SOLA SCRIPTURA is brought up. As a Reformed Christian I recognize and yield to the authority of God’s Word as the preeminent authority over matters of faith and practice. The Catholics inevitably say: “Scripture doesn’t interpret itself. You just believe your own interpretation of the Bible”. For sake of argument, I’ll just accept that assertion in this case, but I will push back on their own presuppositions. The reason that the Catholic gives for having a “better” epistemology is that they have the local priest/bishop to correct their private interpretation. I’m sure you noticed the problem: The Catholic in the screenshot above reserved the right to criticize bishops and priest as being in error, but they rely on the bishops and priests to correct the private interpretations of the Bible. It’s circular confusion. They can’t “know a bishop or priest is in error” since it is the bishop or priest on whom they rely to correct private interpretations. Confusion reigns for these poor Catholics.
“The church has two thousand years of consistent teaching”
Regarding the claim that Rome has had two thousand years of consistent teaching, I will point out that the Roman Catholics have a consistent tradition of adding new traditions:
Purgatory 1274 AD (2nd Council of Lyon)
Indulgences 1415 AD (Council of Constance)
Papal Infallibility 1870 (1st Vatican Council)
Mary Queen of Heaven 1954 AD (Pope Pius XII)
Today, the Roman Catholics aren’t known primarily for their commitment to the gospel of Jesus. They are instead known for their trendy traditions: Mariology, indulgences, purgatory, and focus on the Pope (including papal infallibility). These traditions are obviously not found in the Bible, but Rome continues to add these manmade traditions to their religion as if they have the same authority as scripture itself. In this situation with the pope capitulating to the leftist’s mantra about “you can’t be pro-life if you support the death penalty”, who is to say that this isn’t a new tradition that the current bishop of Rome is adding? In the same week, the Pope was roundly panned for blessing a block of ice at a pagan global warming ceremony. Who’s to say that blessing ice or supporting globalist initiatives won’t be new traditions of Roman Catholics? Certainly not Catholics, who might dislike the optics or the new direction of doctrines. They have no consistent standard to question (in their beliefs) “The Vicar of Christ on Earth”!!!
If the pope refuses to stand against abortion by the authority of the church against the state (in this case, a Senator), what good is his supposed authority? It was for such a time as this that the pope could rightly condemn a state representative for heretical views. Senator Durbin claims to be under the authority of the Vatican, yet he has persistently and callously voted for the continuation of child murder (abortion). Isn’t the pope Catholic? Why won’t he exhort (in the strongest possible terms) the political support by Senator Durbin of the genocide of the unborn?
What About Protestants?
The second half of Aaronaeus’s post was to ask about the protestants. How do protestants determine what is the right interpretation of scripture?
Perspicuity of Scripture – This concept that comes from the Bible itself tells us that the Bible is clear. It can be understood. Does that mean that EVERY single passage of scripture is easily understood on its first reading? No. The doctrine of perspicuity is “that the central message of the Bible is clear and understandable and that the Bible itself can be properly interpreted in a normal, literal sense.” In 2 Peter 3:16, the apostle tells us that some things are hard to understand. Immediately following, Peter tells his audience to grow in grace and knowledge. How does one grow in grace and knowledge? Proverbs 2:6 says that knowledge comes from the mouth of the LORD (the Bible). Psalm 119 “Teach me knowledge and good judgment, for I trust your commands” (the Bible). Reformed Christians can also gain knowledge from faithful teachers of the Bible in their Bible-believing church. And we should listen to those, who have worked hard spending time building a faithful Christian worldview based on the Bible. Let God’s word, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, give you knowledge from the mouth of God. As Christians, we should be studying God’s word and letting the faithful preaching of the word in the Bible-believing reformed church change our lives for the better. Someone might bring up 1 Corinthians 2:14 which says that the unspiritual person CANNOT understand the things of the Spirit. This is true, but this is not the claim of the Catholic. Those, whose hearts have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit DO have access to guidance by the Holy Spirit in matters of understanding God’s revelation.
Deuteronomy 6:6-7
2 Timothy 3:14-15
Psalm 19:7
Psalm 119:130
Romans 3:21-22
I Corinthians 14:33
Matthew 28:19-20
Denial of Pervasive Interpretive Pluralism – Implicit in Aaronaeus’s post is the idea that ANY and ALL protestant interpretations are equally faithful to the biblical text. I deny interpretive pluralism. While there are extremely minor acceptable interpretations within Christendom, the post-modern reinterpretations of the Bible to accommodate worldliness, modern paradigms, sexual perversion, and prosperity “gospels” are rejected because they are internally inconsistent.
Acts 17 – When the Bereans were faced with what they thought might be a new gospel from the apostle Paul, they did not call the supposed pope (Peter) to confirm whether it was ok for them to accept the arrival of the Messiah in Jesus. They went to the scriptures to test. The highest authority was what God had revealed in scripture, and when they tested Paul by them, they were commended by God. This is proof that the scriptures have greater weight than an ecclesiastical structure to which Roman Catholics yield.
God’s ability to communicate > than man’s ability to communicate. God has spoken through his word, and by God’s grace, we have the ability to read it. Under guidance by the Holy Spirit, the Christian is able to discern God’s Word. What the Catholic church teaches, is that lay people CANNOT discern God’s Word; they must get the infallible interpretation based on Rome’s manmade traditions mixed with the Vatican’s ever-changing interpretation. The Catholics say that you must listen only to what Rome says. Only Rome’s interpretation matters. I’ve asked Catholics several times where I can find the infallible interpretation of every verse in the Bible, so that I would know what Rome’s infallible interpretation is, but they can never provide it. The Catholic will be tempted to say: “whose interpretation is valid?” Firstly, it is not the entity that teaches Mariology, indulgences, and blesses ice. Secondly, the faithful Christian will strive for the best and most consistent application of using scripture to interpret scripture. While the scriptures are generally perspicuous, there are passages that need deeper study. So, we use the plain to interpret the obscure. We know from Luke 24:27 that ALL of scripture is about Jesus, and with this general principle in mind, we can (with the help of the Holy Spirit & faithful pastors/teachers) discern the correct interpretation. If there is dispute, we reason from the scriptures (the highest authority) to have consistency.
Distraction fallacies
Sweeping generalization: The sweeping generalization fallacy is: since most everyone disagrees about most things, then everyone disagrees about everything. For Catholics it takes the form of: “There are 40,000 protestant denominations.” One of the worst and most common misrepresentations from Catholics about protestants is that when people reject the Vatican that everyone splinters into irreconcilable denominations. Firstly, this is a hypocritical claim because the Catholic church has many denominations…perhaps as many as 250. These Catholic denominations have been deceived by the things of the world. Secondly, just because some protestants have a disagreement about some doctrine is NOT proof that everyone disagrees about everything in unreconcilable divisions. It’s fallacious.
Hasty generalization: A hasty generalization is taking a small sample size and applying it universally. So they fallaciously say: “private interpretation leads to snake handling because there’s a protestant sect that lets snakes bite them, so all protestant doctrine is false.” Catholics believe that since A protestant denomination misinterpreted the biblical text, then ALL protestants have misinterpreted the biblical text. It’s fallacious.
Equivocation fallacy: “The Catholic church as 1 single interpretation given to them from the Pope, so protestants must too”. It’s a perspective that views tribe as important rather than the biblical text itself. This is covered in the section below
Another implicit claim of the Catholics regarding the debate between the authority of Rome’s traditions vs. the authority of scripture, is TRIBE. For the Roman Catholics, it’s not so much about which doctrine or which interpretation speaks most consistently, it is “Are you a part of my theological tribe (Roman Catholicism)?”. They get the idea that there’s a Catholic tribe and a protestant tribe, so they think that the protestant tribe is both wrong (since it’s not in the Catholic tribe) and internally splintered since there are so many interpretations. I’ve already shown why Catholicism itself is wrong, but their belief that there is a single protestant tribe is also incorrect. Christians, who are reformed, don’t consider membership in a particular “tribe” to be what’s important. We consider what the text actually says/means to be what’s important for doctrinal faithfulness. Consistency and faithfulness to the text itself is what defines reformed Christianity rather than membership in a tribe as Catholics believe.
So Aaronaeus’s question is not applicable. Faithful Christians sit under the authority of elders in a Bible-believing church that holds to the authority of the the faithful Christian creeds/confessions. If an elder in the local body of believers acts outside the boundaries of Biblical doctrine, a Christian can appeal to scripture (the highest authority) to correct him. If a creed/confession is shown to be unbiblical, then a Christian can appeal to scripture. The Catholic has no such authority to which to appeal. They must obey the teachings of their priest, bishop or cardinal because that person IS their highest authority
As a reformed Christian, I hold to SOLA SCRIPTURA, which is the idea that the Bible is the highest (and only infallible) authority for matters of faith and practice. The words of the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit, so they cannot fail to be true. My highest appeal in all matters will always be to the text of the Bible itself.
But is there some value in seeing what the church always believed about a topic? Of course. My authority structure is
Why are the historical fathers so low on the list? There’s some debate about who counts as a church father, and there’s some debate about which side of the sad schisms a church father might represent. Regardless, the reason why it’s worthwhile to see what the church has historically believed on a topic could help us find aberrations and cult-like teachings from trendy revisions. In my lifetime, I’ve seen several trendy ideas (Pentacostalism, faith healing, dispensationalism, prosperity gospel…) burn through Christendom, like a wildfire. Most of the time, they are short-lived and burn out quickly because there’s no root or truth to them. Sometimes, they cling like Texas-heated road tar…sticky and difficult to get rid of. So, there is every reason to see what has been the historic Christian position on topics of interest. Most theological heresies were dealt with early on and have been recorded in the confessions and the creeds. I expect old earthism will be a road-tar type of false teaching that becomes very difficult to cleanse from Christianity due to its strong ties to scientism, which has the appearance of authority even though it changes its position with nearly every new discovery.
Obviously, this is a 30,000 foot view, and does not address specific writings of specific authors. But we get the idea that in general, Christians prior to the writings of Darwin fully accepted the Biblical account that there was no death or suffering in the world until after Adam had sinned. NOTE: Any bold, italics or underline is my own addition. Let’s look at a few individual men, who are generally recognized as church fathers:
Irenaeus of Lyons (c.130-202 AD): In his “Against Heresies”, Irenaeus argued that death was not part of the original creation, and that sin brought both physical and spiritual death to all of creation. The curse of sin introduced corruption and mortality into creation, and that the promises mentioned in Isa 11 would restore the harmony of animals to their pre-fall state.
Tertullian (c. 160-220 AD): In “Against Marcion”, Tertullian emphasizes that the Creator is good, and his creation was absent of death and corruption which entered creation through human sin. He describes death as an “intruder“. He understands Romans 8:19-21 to teach that futility and subjection to corruption for ALL of creation is due to the fall into sin. In “On the Resurrection of the Flesh” Tertullian describes the peace and harmony of animals in the future to be a renewal of the harmony that was once known before the fall.
Theophilus of Antioch (c. 168 AD): In his work “ad Autolycus” Theophilus says “And the animals are named wild beasts, from their being hunted, not as if they had been made evil or venomous from the first—for nothing was made evil by God, but all things good, yea, very good,—but the sin in which man was concerned brought evil upon them …. When, therefore, man again shall have made his way back to his natural condition, and no longer does evil, those also shall be restored to their original gentleness.”
Athanasius (C. 296-373 AD): In “On the Incarnation” he emphasizes that the state of the creation today (death and corruption) was brought by human sin. Though animals are not specifically mentioned, the context of his broader theology and the deduction that animals are included within creation leaves little room to doubt that he understood that the fall into sin was the corrupting force that invaded God’s once-very-good creation
Augustine (354-430 AD): In “The City of God” Augustine says that death, including animal death, was not part of God’s original creation. It was an intruder into the creation that before sin was very good. In “On the Literal Meaning of Genesis” he says further that the predatory behaviors and mortality of animals started after human sin. Before sin the original creation was free from violence, corruption, and predation
Basil the Great (c. 330-379 AD): I’ll spend the most time on Basil of Caesarea. It was just recently that I was challenged by an internet personality to research to see whether Basil the Great taught (as the Bible says) that there was no death among animals prior to the fall. Basil is known mostly for his 9 Homilies, the Hexaemeron, which means “The Six Days of Creation”. Clearly, Basil agreed with the authors of scripture that Genesis was history of the works of God in creation. In Homily 5 Basil writes: “But then (pre-fall) the rose was without thorns; since then (post-fall) the thorn has been added to its beauty, to make us feel that sorrow is very near to pleasure, and to remind us of our sin, which condemned the earth to produce thorns and caltrops.” Basil understood from the text of scripture that creation was changed after the fall. As Genesis 3 teaches, there were no thorns in creation prior to the fall. This is a serious problem for those, who deny YEC since fossil thorns have been found in layers that they think were formed millions of years prior to the sin of Adam. More relevant to this discussion, in his work:
“On the Origin of Humanity” Homily 2 section 6 Basil says: “God did not say: “I have given you the fishes for food, I have given you the cattle, the reptiles, the quadrupeds.” It is not for this that He created, says the Scripture. In fact, the first legislation allowed the use of fruits, for we were still judged worthy of Paradise…To you, to the wild animals and the birds, says the Scripture, fruits, vegetation and herbs (are given) … We see, however, many wild animals which do not eat fruits. what fruit does the panther accept to nourish itself? What fruit can the lion satisfy himself with? Nevertheless, these beings, submitting to the law of natures, were nourished by fruits…after the Flood, knowing that men were wasteful, allowed them the use of all foods; “eat all that in the same was as edible plants”. By this allowance, the other animals also received the liberty to eat them…Since then (post-flood) the lion is a carnivore, since then also vultures watch for carrion. For the vultures were not yet looking over the earth at the very moment (creation week) when the animals were born; in fact, nothing of what had received designation or existence had yet died so that the vultures might eat them. Nature had not yet divided, for it was all in its freshness…the beasts, for their part, did not yet tear their prey,for they were not carnivores … But all followed the way of the swans, and all grazed on the grass of the meadow.” You can see from Basil’s writings that he was in agreement with the scriptures when he taught that there was no animal death prior to the fall. No carnivory behavior. No scavenging because there were no dead animals…no corruption. Sidebar: to learn how I was able to get the information from “On the Origin of Humanity” and the screenshots of the source material, see *** below
In his Homily on Fasting, Basil argued that the original diet of both humans and animals was limited ONLY to fruits, herbs, and plants.
Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-395 AD): In “On the Making of Man” Gregory says that the fall into sin introduced corruption and death not only humanity but also the created order, which includes animals
I could find NO church fathers who explicitly taught that there was human or animal death prior to the fall
When Did Christians Begin To Believe That Animals Died Before Sin?
The first Christian of note to write and teach definitively that animals died before the fall was George Frederick Wright in his 1906 book “Scientific Confirmations of Old Testament History”. In that book he tried to bring the Bible into concordance with the modern academic paradigm. Sadly, in order to do so, he had to deny the Bible’s account of a global flood, which is the biblical explanation for the geologic layers. But at the time when Wright was writing, historic Christianity was under deep attack from the modern academic paradigm, which has come to be known as “the science”, even though it has little to do with actual science. Today, the view that Wright espoused has metastasized throughout Christendom. What was considered historic Christianity for 1900 years has been dismissed by modern mainstream thought as a cult.
So instead of Basil being an old earther, the evidence confirms that Saint Basil the Great was an outspoken advocate of young earth creation as were all of the church fathers because it’s just what the Bible says. Old earth creationism is a trendy fad that is brand new to Christendom first appearing about 1800 years after the Creator Himself walked the Earth. No church father held to a billions of years old earth. Until Darwin in 1859, nearly every Christian held to what we would today call young earth creation.
You might wonder: “What about the Roman Catholics? Today they believe evolution. What has been their traditional view of Genesis 1-11?” I’m glad you asked. The Roman Catholic Church for 1800 years accepted the strict young earth creation view, but today that branch of Christianity has almost completely capitulated to Darwin. Sadly, the RCC has capitulated to many other false teachings and worldliness as well.
You might also wonder: “What about the Eastern Orthodox Church? What has been their traditional view of Genesis 1-11?” In general, the EOC was pliable on the length of days, but they held strongly to the Genesis chronogenealogies on the age of the Earth. They have also accepted God’s revelation of a historical global flood in judgment for sin, and that death, disease, suffering, and corruption were a result of the sin of mankind. Sin affected all of creation as the Bible clearly teaches. Here is a book from one of their teachers
So all three principle branches of Christendom held to the truth of God’s word as authoritative until the modern paradigm stole the “throne” of magisterium from the Bible.
The Gospel of Jesus is: The Creator made a very good creation that was free of the curses for sin. But because of the universal effects of the curse of sin over all of creation, Jesus took on the human form as a descendant of Adam, was born of a virgin in accordance with scripture, and lived a perfect life by keeping the whole law. After He was crucified for the sins of those, who would repent, He defeated death by rising again and is seated at the right hand of the Father. Those, who repent and put their faith in Him will have abundant life
***
In my research for this blog post, I searched using the usual tools available to me on if Basil taught that animals died before the fall: Grok, Google, Brave search…Grok answered my question with the quotes that I used above, but the attribution was to the Hexaemeron by Basil. There are several links to English translations of the Hexaemeron, but the quotes did not appear in any of the text of the Hexaemeron itself. I kept digging and digging for any writings that show that Basil taught that animals died before the fall, because I had been ASSURED by The_Blind_Guide that Basil taught death before sin. A link from oldbelieving.wordpress.com attributed the quote to Basil’s work “On the Origin of Humanity”. There is NOT an English translation of Basil’s “On the Origin of Humanity” readily available on the internet…as far as I can find. My next step lead me to archive.org…the Internet Archive. I created a free account and began to search for the writings of Basil. There were all kinds of writings, duplicates, and writings ABOUT Basil. Filtering the Media search to “Text” and Author search results to “Basil, Saint, Bishop of Caesarea” there were 36 results. Still no “On the Origin of Humanity”…except there was something called “Sur l’originè de l’homme”. Looks kinda Frenchy for the origin of hominids (humans). I checked it out and found that it was the French translation of the original Greek in which Basil wrote his works. I speak neither French nor Greek. It’s all Greek to me. But being the intrepid ApoloJedi that I am, I started working my way through the text with Google Translate. Homily 2 chapter 6 yielded the pot of gold. Basil cannot be considered anything other than a young earth creationist based on his own words as shown above. I did find all of this information from creation.com as well, but I know that scoffers and the Christians, who have been deceived by old earthism, refuse to listen to the scientists from creation organizations. Source materials are harder for them to ignore. Having completed my research, I began to imagine what it must have been like to be an investigator from as late as 1990. To get the information, that today I was able to get from my desk during my lunch break, might have taken months or years of deep investigative work and collaborations with multiple people. Technology has been a wonderful tool for searching and learning
ark:/13960/t0204f225 Property of archive.orgark:/13960/t0204f225 Property of archive.org
Across time and space, authority has shifted from one perceived power to another. Who or what was able to make authoritative statements to which there was no greater appeal? Let’s look at how authority has changed hands over time and see how we as Christians should handle authority.
Might Makes Right
Throughout history we have seen world powers demand compliance because of the might of their armies. From the Assyrians, to the Babylonians, to the Persians, to the Greeks, to the Romans…those with the mightiest armies have said what is right.
In the midst of these world powers, we have records of the Hittites, the Huns, the Mongolians, and the Turks kill people who disagreed with them.
Should a soldier in a Roman army force you to carry their gear 1 mile, there was no recourse or appeal. If the Roman centurion came into your village and told you to join the legion as a soldier, you were conscripted. Whatever they said had authority because of the might of their arms
Authoritative statements were proclaimed by the kings and commanders of those armies. There was no appeal higher than those with the most might
Roman Catholic Church Magisterium
Power shifted from armies to theologians as the Roman Empire was both consumed by its own depravity and picked apart by barbarians. Authoritative power began to be condensed within the walls of the Vatican and its sister in Byzantium. Proclamations from the bishops of those ecumenical ivory towers carried the greatest weight. Peasants and princes alike fell into step when pushed by the papacies. Christianity was established as the dominant ideology throughout western civilization. Amidst this shift from military power to the church, the seeds of the scientific revolution were planted. As that unchecked authoritative power grew, so did the corruption among the bishops. Indulgences, worldliness, and idolatry weakened the power in Rome…while the militant barbarism of the Muslims crushed the power of Byzantium/Constantinople in the East. Anyone (like Martin Luther, Jan Hus, William Tyndale and others) who questioned the authority of the Roman Catholics was met with swift and brutal retribution. Luther escaped death, but the others were killed for questioning the authority of the Papacy. Until the Reformation, there was no appeal for justice or truth higher than the Papacy.
Scientism
As the scientific revolution matured, it began to grow in influence, the authoritative power of the Roman Catholic church waned. What scientists said carried unquestioned authority. Anyone who dissented from what scientists said were summarily and ruthlessly expelled from academia. You hear this authority being expressed even today as “the science says…” and “the science is settled” and “it’s been peer-reviewed”. The priesthood garments of the Roman Catholic’s authority shifted to the white lab coats of the scientists. Anyone wearing a white lab coat was seen as having unquestioned authority in claims about truth. The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic bishops, priests, and deacons were similarly transformed to the peer-review journals and accompanying gatekeepers. Those, who wished to produce “sacred” texts into the peer-review journals must swear “fealty to Saint Charles Darwin”. Anyone, who questions the “most holiest” of ideologies in scientism (natural selection acting on random mutations produced all biodiversity) were viewed as heretics and denied entrance. As with those, who questioned the authority of the Papacy from the previous era, anyone, who makes the slightest inquiry about evolution, is swiftly and prejudiciously expelled from academia by the gatekeepers of scientism.
Statism
Governments in the 20th century began to take power from the scientists in matters of authority. From the monumentally destructive policies of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, the federal government metastasized far beyond its intended borders. It wasn’t a complete transfer of authoritative power from the scientists to the state, but with the military and financial power of the American government, scientists began subjecting themselves to the funding and judicial authority of the state. Funding subservience is evident in the way that scientists have requested grant money and structured their requests from the public funds. We also see that many scientists have capitulated to the narrative of global warming. Public funding for scientific solutions for energy problems went almost completely to “green energy”, so the authority was logically in the hands of those holding the purse strings (the state) rather than the scientists. Judicial subservience was highlighted most obviously in the Dover trial of 2005. When the evidence for scientific advancement was strongly favoring the intelligent design movement, the scientific gatekeepers appealed to what they viewed was a higher authority: the state. In the trial, it was determined by a rogue judge that intelligent design was not a scientific theory, so he denied educators from questioning the theory of evolution.
Experts and Artificial Intelligence
Statism devolved rather quickly to the belief that “experts” have the greatest authority to which there was no higher appeal. In the 21st century, authoritative power began to be accumulated in the hands of experts. The power of the “experts” reared its ugly head in 2020 when they told the world that a bio-engineered virus was simply a natural pathogen that got into the food supply from a market in China. They told the world that this most deadly of human contagions could be solved by shutting down all businesses, wearing a thin cloth mask, and standing 6 feet apart. None of those things were true yet the “experts” retained their power over the government and the populace. Experts were interviewed by the media for issues like the epidemics, economy, climate, health/medicine, philanthropy, politics, and the environment. Sadly, “expert” isn’t an objective measure by having so many expertise points or expertise units…it’s a completely subjective title – and many so-called experts have shown themselves to be unqualified as paper-tigers. With the advent of artificial intelligence, everyone with a phone can now be an “expert”. Authority in the information space is now manifest in the gargantuan processing power of super computers (and the programmers that have built the response algorithms.) If you’ve spent time making searches and questions of AI apps, you’re sure to recognize the biases that have gone into their “authoritative” responses. As artificial intelligence is still in its infancy, it has yet to be determined how large an impact AI will have on culture, the economy, politics, industry, and humanity itself.
As Christians, what should we view as our ultimate authority?
The Bible
Over and over in the Bible, we read “Thus says the LORD…” and “The LORD said…” and “Jesus said, Truly I say to you…”
The Bible records the very words and expectations of the Creator. What the omniscient omnipotent God has said cannot fail to be correct. All of the Bible has been inspired by the word of the Holy Spirit. Worldly authorities like armies, ecclesiastical fiefdoms, nations, and experts can claim to have the standard of truth, but only God’s eternal Word “will not pass away…remains forever…will stand forever…endures forever…”
Jesus claims to be “the Truth” and that if you hold to the teaching of Jesus as his disciple, “you will know the Truth and the Truth will set you free.” As Christians we should believe what Jesus has said in his eternal word: our ultimate authority. Now before anyone accuses me of being a bibliolater, we worship God alone (not the Bible), and we trust the revelation of God in his written word.
In the early 21st century there are competing authorities vying for the title of magisterial. The aforementioned Roman Catholic Church claims to be the only authoritative entity from which all truth resides. Sadly, they have proven to be a false authority with their false teachings of Mariology and the prevalent breaking of the 2nd commandment. The RCC disqualified itself as the authority for truth by fabricating the sale of indulgences to substitute money/works in place of time in purgatory. Scientism, has corrupted itself with bias and self-indulgence. While the scientific method is good and works because Christianity is true, scientism is a self-defeating ideological assumption. The State continues to demand obeisance in matters of right/wrong even though states are frequently the most corrupt and wicked entities. Experts are biased and can ignore the truth when it suits them. Other competing authorities are “the science“, culture and autonomous reasoning. Each of these claim to be proven truth or the “right side of history” or “just common sense”. But in every case, they fall short of Truth as revealed by God. In some cases, these counterfeit authorities want the facade of the Bible to hide their deficient epistemology, so they try to inject their teachings into the Bible, so that their advocates can say:
In my recent discussion with Adam about whether young earth creation (YEC) is a cult, we came to agreement that YEC is NOT a cult. This conversation happened in response to Adam’s poorly titled video where he inferred that many who believe YEC are in a cult.
You can see that with the definitions, his entire case was reliant upon anecdotal experience, and not any actual evidence. The definition of Mere Young Earth Creation (YEC) is:
Days of Gen 1 were 24hr days – in accordance with scripture
God directly created all creatures as fixed kinds – in accordance with scripture
Adam/Eve were the parents of the human race – in accordance with scripture
Creation was created good free of sin’s effects – in accordance with scripture
Order of events in days 1-6 is chronological – in accordance with scripture
Universe is 6000-10000 years old – in accordance with scripture
Flood covered the entire earth – in accordance with scripture
If you get nothing else from this discussion, the following quote is the KEY point in this whole debate: At base, the denial of young earth creation is the failure to uphold scripture’s primacy in the face of competing authorities. These competing authorities were (and are) the modern academic paradigm (which some conflate as science itself), culture, and human reasoning. Nothing changed in the Bible. What changed was competing authorities.
YEC upholds the Bible as written to be the magisterial authority. From the reading of the text and for the first one thousand eight hundred years within Christendom, there was no competing authority for influence. In the renaissance era there was a reformation of Christianity, art, and the birth of the scientific revolution. Unfortunately, the scientists of the 19th century craved exemption from the historical boundaries of the Genesis account. It didn’t fit their naturalistic theories of self-development. Their naturalistic ideology began to be conflated as science, and has persisted today as dogmatically authoritative. This new authority began to systematically crush all dissenters…especially those who held to historical biblical creation…as unscientific. Yet the scientific revolution was literally catalyzed by young earth creationists. There’s no conflict between science the YEC. The disagreement is between this modern academic paradigm and historical Christianity to the point now that the modern academic paradigm has been regarded as science and historical Christianity is now regarded as a cult.
I can’t emphasize this enough: YEC is the historical Christian understanding of the Bible prior to the Holy Advent Of Darwin’s Cherished Theory. Here are the answers from Christian history:
Notice how in ALL of these examples Christianity was FORCIBLY changed by the modern paradigm of evolution and its cascading beliefs. Sadly, Christians capitulated to a competing authority. While Adam does not hold to biological evolution, his views have been the result of the 20th and 21st century propaganda of scientific materialism making its way into biblical interpretation…looking for ways to bring the Bible into concordance with modern sensibilities.
In the section of the debate that centered on Adam’s claim that “there’s not a single Bible verse to support that interpretation (there was a change at the fall)” starting about 1:13:00, he doesn’t argue against the verses that I brought up. He figuratively waves his hands as if they don’t exist. It reminds me of the meme of the guy in the chair, and once shot, there are no more arguments against the shooter. If you ignore all of the Bible verses about significant changes to creation (including animals) because of the fall, then there are none.
As I mentioned in the conversation with Adam, the modern academic paradigm (MAP) is being treated as if it is the science itself. Rather than revelation from God, MAP is viewed as the dominant authority. If MAP is “science”, it’s the same “science” that says:
Boys can be girls
The earth has only 10 years remaining due to either an ice age or global warming
The earth is billions of years old
Evolution is true
Science has disproved the Bible
The most deadliest virus in all of history can be stopped with a cloth mask
Eat more carbs and avoid animal proteins
Christians should reject this tactic of redefining the scientific method into some political touchstone to which everyone must bow and give unquestioning allegiance.
As Adam admitted under cross examination, when you deny YEC the only course that one can believe is that death, suffering, misery, cancer, starvation, parasites, and predation are very good. It’s a sad state to declare the curses of sin to be good
Back to the title of my post. YEC is definitely historic Christianity and has been maligned as if it is a cult…even if Adam is walking back somewhat on the title of his video. Now to MY claim:
ANE is a cult
What is a cult? From my conversation with Adam, these were the definitions we came up this:
Adam: “Authoritarian leadership. We know better, and everyone just needs to listen to us. 2. Discourage other people from questioning their teachings. 3. Us vs them mentality. 4. Controlling, manipulating emotional tactics.”
Merriam Webster: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious
Britannica: a religious movement that exists in some degree of tension with the dominant religious or cultural inclination of a society
Dictionary.com: a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader
What is ANE? Ancient Near East hermeneutical interpretation of the Bible. This is a fashionable method for interpreting the Bible based on what some archeological finds from ancient near east dig sites that scholars have proposed is MORE basic than the Bible. In their view, these cultural findings demand that the Bible must not mean what it says. The text of scripture is now subject to whatever these pagan cultures (that God marked for destruction) meant in their writings. These pagan cultures wrote about certain themes and archetypes, so in the view of these guru scholars, the authors of scripture must have meant the exact same things with their types and symbols. With that hermeneutic, they presume that there was no material creation, no historic fall into sin, no worldwide flood, no historical ages for patriarchs, no tower of Babel…The Pentateuch (particularly Genesis) is barren of history but is instead full of polemics and poetry in accordance with pagan near eastern cultures. Why do I call it a cult?
According to the definition of a cult, there is a (or multiple) authoritarian leadership (gurus). Prior to John Walton and Michael Heiser circa 1990, this idea that the Bible must conform to pagan writings was unheard of within Christianity. For nearly 2000 years no Christian scholar accepted this type of thinking, but with Walton’s and Heiser’s writing we hear: “trust us, we’re scholars”. It’s no longer SOLA SCRIPTURA…it’s Sola Scholara.
Secondly, ANE exists in tension to mainstream Christianity. Unfortunately, their controlling tactics have been persuasive to many Christians and the pendulum is swinging left in a hurry
Thirdly, these gurus are discouraging people from trusting the Christian fathers of the last 2000 years and your very own eyes. You can read what the Bible says for yourself, but these gurus propose that your ignorant eyes can’t see the deeper meanings in the text. You have to incorporate their special interpretive lens. The trendy scholars have secret knowledge that they are sharing with the masses. This secret knowledge is available for those, who will buy their books and watch their content.
Fourthly, the ideas that they espouse do NOT come from the Bible itself. It comes from the gurus. They found some pagan writings, and they want their special views to be brought into scripture. It’s the opposite of traditional hermeneutical methods, which would instead teach us that only scripture interprets scripture. We should get our understanding from the scriptures themselves, but these ANE gurus tell us that their ANE views must be brought INTO the text
YEC is not a cult, but ANE is
Correction: At about 1:12:00 I should have said theodicy not theophany
In my most recent journey through the Bible, I’ve made a list of phrases that in the past have been used as colloquialisms in American culture. Because of the general biblical illiteracy in 21st century America, I thought it would be a good idea to identify some of these common phrases as having origin in the Bible, since most people would probably not recognize their origin or its basic meaning. Here are the ones I’ve come up with:
Genesis 3:19 “for dust you are and to dust you will return”
Exodus 3:8 “a land flowing with milk and honey”
Exodus 21:24 “eye for eye, tooth for tooth”
Deuteronomy 32:10 “the apple of his eye”
Job 19:20 “I have escaped by the skin of my teeth”
Proverbs 13:20 “He who walks with the wise grows wiser, but a companion of fools suffers harm”
Proverbs 16:18 “Pride goes before destruction”
Proverbs 17:22 “A cheerful heart is good medicine”
Although not a direct quote, we see the source for the colloquialism “Laughter is the best medicine” as coming from Solomon’s wisdom
Proverbs 17:28 “Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips he is deemed intelligent”
Abraham Lincoln is believed to have said “It is better to be silent and be thought dumb, than to speak and remove all doubt.” Whether he said it or not, the quote clearly has its origin in the Proverbs
Proverbs 27:17 “As iron sharpens iron”
Proverbs :29:24 “The partner of a thief hates his own life”
You can see the colloquialism: “there’s no honor among thieves” as having its genesis in Proverbs 29
Isaiah 22:13 “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die”
Isaiah 40:31 “They will mount up with wings as eagles”
Ecclesiastes 1:9 “there is nothing new under the sun”
Ecclesiastes 1:17 “chasing after the wind”
Ecclesiastes 3:1 “For everything there is a season”
Ecclesiastes 3:2 “A time to be born and a time to die”
Ecclesiastes 3:20 “All are from dust and to dust all return”
Similar to the Genesis 3 phrase, Americans, who have watched movies that have funerals or have attended a funeral will be familiar with the phrase the God created Adam from dust, and while our souls are immortal, our bodies return to the dust in death
Ecclesiastes 4:12 “a cord of 3 strands is not quickly broken”
Ecclesiastes 5:15 “naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I will return”
Jeremiah 13:23 “Can a leopard change his spots?”
Daniel 3:27 “Not a single hair on your head is harmed”
Daniel 5 “The writing is on the wall”
This exact phrase does not appear in Daniel, but the promise of impending doom is clearly communicated from God’s hand to Belshazzar for his rebellion and wickedness. The colloquialism is clearly understood to be an inevitable calamity
Hosea 8:7 “reap the whirlwind”
Matthew 3:12 “separate wheat from chaff”
Matthew 5:39 “turn the other cheek”
Matthew 5:43 ” Love your neighbor”
Matthew 5:44 “Love your enemies”
Matthew 6:24 “You cannot serve 2 masters”
Matthew 7:3-5 “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”
Matthew 7:10 “Do to others as you’d have them do to you”
Matthew 15:14 “blind leading the blind”
Matthew 25:32 “separate sheep from the goats”
Matthew 27:24 “he took water and washed his hands before the crowd saying ‘I am innocent of this man’s blood'”
Again we don’t see the exact phrase, but we hear people say “I wash my hands of this” as if to declare themselves innocent/unaffiliated of/with a failing or guilty entity
Mark 8:36 “What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul”
Mark 12:17 “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”
Luke 14:27 “anyone who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy to be my disciple.” The colloquialism is usually phrased “It’s my cross to bear” or something similar
Luke 16:10 “Whoever can be trusted with very little can be trusted with much. Whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much”
Acts 20:35 “More blessed to give than to receive”
1 Corinthians 15:32 “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die”
1 Corinthians 15:33 “Bad company ruins good morals”
I’m sure there are many that I missed. Feel free to add them in the comments. The idea behind this post is the importance of an understanding of the Bible. At one time, the American populace had a much greater knowledge of God’s eternal word. So colloquialisms that appeared in the lexicon were well understood because of how familiar Americans were with the scripture.
Fathers, read the Bible. Fathers, read the Bible with your family. Make sure that your family has a deep and abiding knowledge of the Bible
In this debate, my Christian friend @CuriousChristianity attempted to argue the positive for this case, and I took the much easier (and biblical) case for the negative
Opening
Americans on average go through 12 years of public school indoctrination in evolution. Those, who go to college and those who get advanced degrees get 4, 6 or 8 more years of deeper indoctrination into the ideas that animals have been dying for millions of years. Even those who don’t get advanced degrees are saturated with movies and tv shows and news bulletins and flyers and conversations among work associates that bloodshed and death are pervasive for the assumed millions of years of evolutionary development. Some would call this science, but it is at the very least a philosophical idea that is deeply ingrained in 21st century thinking. It takes courage and discernment not to drink in and believe the worldly philosophy of evolutionism as a basic assumption. My friend may or may not believe in evolution, but the influence of the philosophies of death for millions of years is both pervasive and assumed in this culture. Many Christians who have been indoctrinated in the philosophy of death for millions of years search for holes in the text of the Bible to see if there is room to insert these outside ideas of death and suffering before the fall into sin. See if in this debate, you can discern how the assumptions of death have influenced the arguments of my friend rather than starting instead with the eternal word of God.
My case will have 3 points: Good, Food and Blood
Good
My friend has the very unenviable task of building the case that the Bible teaches that animals died before the fall of mankind. It is particularly difficult since no where in the Bible will you find death before the fall. He might make some assumptions and you’ll likely hear him try to talk about how good death really is, but please pray for my friend: his case is hopeless
During the creation account in Genesis 1 God declares his creation to be good 7 times and the 7th time, He declared it to be very good. What does the Hebrew word (tove) mean? Those, who hold to the temple inauguration view (like my opponent) will say it means “functional” or “ready”. Does this hold up to a textual analysis from Moses, in the same context to the same audience?
Gen 1:31 “God saw all that He had made, and it was very functional”
Gen 2:17 “But you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of functional and dysfunctional”
Gen 3:22 “Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing functionality and dysfunction”
Of course, this does not make any sense, but this is what the guru, John Walton, would have us believe from p50 of his book The Lost World of Genesis, where he says: “the meaning of the repeated formula ‘it was good’, which I propose refers to functioning properly…functional readiness”
This is the trendy tactic for Walton’s followers to get around the serious problem of animal death. If they can redefine good to have nothing to do with sin/morality or the fall, then they can accept the modern paradigm’s view that animal death has been happening for millions of years (or as they might say “for an unknown amount of time). But if good has to do with the absence of evil or the antithesis of evil/harm/destruction, then those who hold to this view have a serious theological problem.
This word good H2896 tove (tob) is used to describe God Himself at least 27 times in the old testament. Are we to believe Walton’s definition that the Almighty is functional? 40 times in the old testament tove is paired with ra (evil) H7451 as its inverse. And we clearly see from Isa 11:6-9 that the destruction caused by the fall includes predatory destruction. The Apostle Pual picks up this seamless theme in scripture that during creation week there was an absence of corruption but because of the curse of sin “For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.”
If my friend’s case is true, then suffering, cancer, and death are “very good”. But I Cor 15:26 tells us that “the final to be destroyed is death”.
If good is to have any meaning at all, then it cannot include suffering, harm, destruction and death as would be necessary for my friend’s case
Food
Genesis 1:28-29 has 5 commands
Be fruitful
Fill the earth
Subdue it
Have dominion over the animals
You shall have them (green plants) for good
Gen 1:30 relates the 5th command of God to “every beast of the field, every bird of the heavens & everything that creeps on the earth – everything that has the breath of life”
Predation is shown to be forbidden. Humans SHALL eat the green plants for food & those under man’s dominion shall eat green plants. Why would we assume that those under Adam’s jurisdiction be granted a freedom to consume meat that was denied to humanity?
If you doubt that the Genesis 1 command to eat only the green plants is NOT a command, we can look to the recreation language of God after the global flood in Genesis 9
Gen 9:1-3 “And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground amd all the fish of the seas. Into your hand they are now delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood”
Again we see the commands of God to be fruitful, fill the earth, subdue it and have dominion over animals. But the 5th command is freed of the restriction of animal consumption. This pattern at the creation and recreation is apparent and even if not in words, is logically denied by my friend. There’s every reason to believe Gen 1:29 is also a command for humans because this command is reversed in Genesis 9. And by deduction, we see that the animals are subject to God’s pre-fall dietary commands as well – to be vegetarian
Blood
The 1st recorded bloodshed in the Bible is the penal substitutionary atoning sacrifice of an animal in the garden by God Himself to cover the sins of Adam and Eve. The skin of this animal was used to cover their nakedness. This picture of the eventual bloodshed of Jesus was represented in the garden by the 1st recorded death of an animal. Without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness
Before the fall, God’s creation was very good – completely absent of evil/harm/destruction/predation and God promises that his creation will be restored to a state that is absent of evil/harm/destruction/predation through the redemptive work of Jesus. There was no room for animal death suffering or predation in God’s very good creation prior to the fall. As the writer of Hebrews tells us “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness”. Has there been millions of years of needless suffering, bloodshed, and death in a world that God called very good as Walton tells us? Or as Romans 8 tells us, did the whole of creation become subjected to its bondage to corruption and groaning because of the sin of mankind?
It would be unexpected (according to my friend’s view) for something as meaningless as the bloodshed and death of animals to represent the atoning bloodshed of the Savior. It’s discordant with all of scripture to assume that there was some unknown epoch of meaningless bloodshed/death of animals that suddenly became the picture of Jesus’s redemptive sacrifice. But it is perfectly aligned with the teaching of the Bible that no bloodshed occurred until mankind sinned. The Spirit revealed to the writer of Hebrews how animal death isn’t meaningless as would be the logical result of my friend’s view.
Hebrews 9:13-22 “For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.” And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.”
All of the Bible is about Jesus as seen in Luke 24:44-45. The picture of the bloodshed of Jesus was represented in the bloodshed of animals as recorded for the 1st time after Adam/Eve had sinned. There is a gaping theological hole in the argument that rather than there being representative significance to the bloodshed of animals, the bloodshed and death of animals is meaningless because it happened for millions of years prior to the curse of sin. It is an unwitting diminution of the blood sacrifice of Jesus
Closing
As you can see from the video, the Bible does NOT teach that animals died before the fall. You have to appreciate the effort by my friend, but he had an impossible task. The assumptions and speculations he has made are just not found in the text itself.
There is great symmetry between the old and new creation. The Bible has a clear chiastic structure which we can see when looked at as a whole. God’s original good creation was cursed by bondage to corruption and death because of man’s sin. But because of what Jesus has done as the prophets & Revelation reveal, God will restore creation to a state that will be absent of evil and harm. This redemptive plan brings glory to Jesus. The resurrection of Jesus has power to redeem all of creation from its bondage to suffering, corruption and to defeat the last enemy: death.
Be brave and discerning dear Christians. Though the dominant paradigm is saturated with worldly philosophies like evolution and deep time, we need not be captive to this kind of thinking. We have the mind of Christ, and out thinking should be shaped according to Christ’s revelation and for His glory
The Bible tells us that humans are made in the image of God. As image bearers, humans were empowered to uphold God’s dominion over all of his lovely creation. Genesis tells us that the curses for sin were thorns, suffering, and death. Jesus took each of these curses upon Himself at the cross. Denying that the curses for sin had no effect on the creation over which mankind had dominion, limits both the universally destructive power of sin AND the redemptive work of Jesus, whose power is even greater than that of sin. His death and resurrection heals not just the hearts of the repentant, but restores the relationships of the wolf and the lamb, the leopard with the goat, the calf and the lion. There will no longer be harm and destruction that has pervaded this sin-cursed creation.
Post Debate Discussion
During the debate, Adam said, “We should let God define good”. And I heartily agree. When we let scripture speak for itself, goodness is clearly an absence of evil/harm/death. God uses the Hebrew word for good (tob, H2896) to describe Himself at least 27 times in the old testament. And at least 45 times in the old testament God contrasts good (tob) with evil (ra, H7451). The Hebrew word ra means evil, harm or destruction. The definition of good is the absence of evil, harm, & destruction. So, Adam’s entire case is discordant with what the Bible teaches. So, yes – Let God define what is good
While the argument about the tree of life is a good one, it is easily shown to be insufficient to overcome the teaching from scripture that everything in creation was very good before the fall. And since the Bible (Rev 22:2) tells us that the tree of life is for the *healing* of the nations. This healing is easily inferred to be from the mortal wound of sin. Without sin, there would be no need for healing.
What about plants or bacteria or spiders (as Adam brought up several times in the debate? Plants, while categorized as alive today, are really just a self-replicating food source. As for the others, see the article here.
If you are unfamiliar with the misery, suffering, bloodshed, and harm that animals deal with, follow these accounts on X. These are the behaviors that old earthers think are part of a “very good” creation for millions of years prior to the sin of mankind
@TheBrutalNature
@BrutaINature1
@TheeDarkCircle
Some more thoughts about how God views blood as important, check out these passages:
So animal blood, while much less valuable than the blood of Christ, is shown to be valuable for covering sins. The shedding of animal blood is the picture of Christ’s blood, so it is not insignificant as would be necessary in the views of old earthism. Predation and death of animals would not be expected from a biblical view. It is only the worldly philosophies that bring in the ideas of perpetual predation and animal death prior to the sin of mankind
Don’t overlook the effects of the cultural saturation of evolution in the arguments of my friend. The myth millions of years of death and suffering are so engrained in the cultural milieu, that Adam just assumes death has been a part of history for that long. It’s definitely not a biblical teaching. It comes from outside the Bible. So, we can say with certainty that the Bible teaches that animals did NOT die before the fall
In response to the Pharisees question of whether a man can lawfully divorce his wife, Jesus responded that divorce was only permitted because of the hardness of their heart. It is recorded in Mark 10:6 that Jesus said: “But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female.” (bold added by me)
This phrase comes up from time to time in discussions about young earth vs. old earth. Young earth creationists say that this is proof that Jesus was a young earth creationist. Old earth creationists have said things like:
“This is just the beginning of mankind”
“This is just the beginning of marriage”
“Mankind wasn’t made at the beginning – Adam was made at some unknown time after creation”
“Jesus didn’t really know the science”
All of those responses do not take the words themselves into account. Jesus said “the beginning of creation”. He did NOT say “the beginning of mankind” or “the beginning of marriage”.
But what about the 3rd bullet point: “Mankind wasn’t made at the beginning. Adam was made at some unknown time after creation” ? In this point, the old earther mischaracterizes the word “beginning” as if it can only mean the initial picosecond (what’s smaller than a picosecond?) of creation. Let’s look at a couple of analogies to show that the old earther demands a hypocritical and draconian misunderstanding of the word: beginning.
Consider the four year term of a president. The 47th president of the United States will be inaugurated in a few months. Would it be reasonable to say that the ‘beginning’ of his term includes only the first breath after taking the oath of office and nothing else? No, of course not. Would it be reasonable to say that the ‘beginning’ of the 47th president’s term included January 21st? 22nd? the first 100 days? Yes. Yes. Yes. The old earther makes an unreasonable demand of the word.
How about the 100m dash? The fastest reaction time allowed for starting a 100m race after the starting notification is 1/10 of a second. If it takes approximately 10 seconds for the finest athletes to run the 100 meter race, then the part of the race where the runner has not even responded to the starting signal is about 1/100 of the race. Commentators speak of the sprinter’s start as the first 10 meters (the beginning) of the race. After the starter’s gun goes off, sprinter’s cannot even begin to move until a 100 billion picoseconds have passed. Certainly, the beginning of the race can include 100 billion picoseconds before the athlete can even move. Yes?
Using our 100m dash analogy, if we limit ‘the beginning’ to just the 1/10 of the second before the sprinters even moved, it would still be more than 2000 times greater than the passage of time relative to the length of the race from the creation week of Genesis 1 to 4000 years later when Jesus said “at the beginning of creation”. In other words when Jesus was speaking about the beginning of creation 4000 years after mankind was formed from the dirt, that length of time is 2,000 times smaller than the 1/10 of a second when a sprinter has not even begun to move out of the starting blocks in his 100m race. Certainly it could be said that within the meaning of the word “beginning” we can reasonably include the 1st week – just as Jesus said. If we put Jesus’s words and the beginning of creation on comparative timelines, things come into sharp focus. The green line shows accurately the beginning of creation that correctly accounts for the words of Jesus.
Conversely, if the old earth view (the red line above) were true and mankind was made 13.7 billion years after creation, it would be as though the runners in a 100 meter race were the same distance as the diameter of 3 water molecules from the finish line. This renders the word “beginning” to be meaningless because in all views other than YEC, the beginning can mean all of history. It destroys the very meaning of the word “beginning”.
You can see clearly that the old earther is faced with the dilemma of either putting false words in the mouth of Jesus, declaring Jesus to be ignorant of his own creation, or destroying language. If you want to be in accordance with scripture, you’ll accept YEC. It’s the only view that is consistent with scripture. The young earth creationist from above is right – Jesus is a young earth creationist.
Yes…clearly. Here’s the definitive debate and some post debate thoughts to help clarify some things that didn’t get full discussion during our allotted time
Here are my notes for my opening:
The word ‘Trinity’ does not appear anywhere in the Bible, but we know from reading the Bible that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God. And we know that God is One. Anyone who denies the trinity is not a Christian. The biblical teaching of a young earth is more clear than the trinity. While people can deny a young earth and still be a Christian, we must wonder why denial of a young earth is so pervasive. For 18 centuries Christians have universally accepted the biblical account that the earth is young. But with the advent of the modern scientific paradigm of deep time at the end of the 18th century, some in the church began to look for ways to bring the biblical account into concordance with that deep time paradigm. It’s a trendy fad with many different ideas on how to do so. From postulating that days actually mean eons to inventing a billions of years gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, the ideas have been creative. The trendiest of ideas that is hyperbolically 15 minutes old, is that Genesis is agnostic to ideas of age and does not deal with “material” creation; just its functional ordering due to the influence of the writings of the Hittites, Sumerians, and other ancient near eastern people groups that were judged with destruction for their wickedness. ALL of these trendy ideas have one thing in common – a specialized guru who tells you that the words don’t mean what they are commonly understood to mean. They mean something unique that only the guru with his secret knowledge can reveal. They say that it is the text of scripture that must be redefined so that the Bible can be brought into alignment with the emergent dominant paradigm.
Is it valid to consider trendy ideas to make the Bible concordant with the worldly philosophies, or should we as Christians uphold the authority of scripture as the magisterial principium? If words have meaning at all, then accepting the Bible’s clear teaching of what we now call young earth creation is self-evident. It is at the expense of denying language itself that fellow brothers in Christ deny that the Bible teaches what I will defend tonight (Does the Bible teach that the earth is young?)
The earth, the universe and everything in it was created in 6 calendar days as the Bible says
The earth was created about 6000 years ago because of the ages given in the corresponding accounts of the unbroken royal lineage of the Seed from Adam -> Abram in Genesis/Chronicles and from Abram to Jesus (Luke) as the Bible says
Jesus confirms that mankind was made at the beginning of creation as the Bible says in Mark 10:6
As Christians, we do not want to hold onto things that are demonstrably false. Genesis and the rest of scripture very clearly tells us that God created in 6 calendar days about 6000 years ago. Most of God’s word was passed to us from the Spirit inspiring the prophets and apostles, but part of the case for young earth was literally written by the hand of God in stone. This was completely undisputed but for the rarest of outliers for about 1800 years until the end of the 19th century. Suddenly when Darwin’s idea of evolution took hold of academia more time was needed to explain his biological theory, so it became trendy to see if the words in the Bible could be stretched to accommodate these naturalistic ideas.
Text: Genesis 1
“In the beginning” – This may come up later as we identify that one of the trendy tactics today is to stretch the word beginning far beyond all recognition. Hebrew grammar and narrative structure of Genesis 1 doesn’t permit a time gap between verses 1 and 2. The waw consecutive (“and”) at the beginning of verse 2 in Hebrew implies a direct sequence of events
Use of the word yom (meaning day) and it’s literally defined there in Genesis 1
Why did God not use any of the deep time words like:
Yamim (plural of yom) – Not used
Qedem (days of old) – Not used
Olam (days of old) – Not used
Some might object and say that Moses didn’t understand large numbers like billions of years, so God had to speak to the simpleton with simpleton language, but this objection would be ignorant of the covenant from Gen 22:17 “I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore”, yet God did not communicate to Moses about his creation in this way
The only reason that God would withhold using large words to describe the time it took for Him to create is because it took only 6 calendar days – just as He said
“Sequential days” are confirmed by the ordinal usage of the text. Had God wished to communicate non-sequential days, it would have been quite easy for Him to say something like “some time later” or “many years later” or “as things developed over time”. Instead, He used language that we all understand to mean sequential consecutive days. The point is clear: God was not giving some ambiguous myth. The words of Genesis have meaning of sequential consecutive calendar days
The days are bounded by evening/morning patterns to separate the days. Not eons. Not years. Not months…but only days are bounded by evenings/mornings. God was being very clear that yom means a calendar day in this context
“But Matt! Can’t yom mean a time period like in Genesis 2:4?” Yes! Notice how they always choose Genesis 2:4. No one ever chooses Genesis 1 because the context shows us that the usage of “yom” in Genesis 2:4 is COMPLETELY different than the usage of “yom” in Genesis 1. But I do agree that Yom has flexibility of usage. As faithful Christians we should look to scripture rather than some outside false authority like the scientific paradigm or modern culture or ancient near eastern cultures. Where can we look within scripture to find a usage of “yom” in the context described in Genesis 1 to give us the correct boundary? Ex 20:9-11 and Ex 31:17
“6 days you shall labor and do your work…for in 6 days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them”
In the same way that God’s people are expected to work each week, we can be certain that it took God the same amount of time to create the entire universe because of what the Bible says
Here’s the meat of the matter: Genesis 5 and 11 record the ages when those in the unbroken royal lineage of Jesus fathered their children. The summation of these ages confirm that the earth is indeed young. For those who would object that there may be gaps in the lineage, I ask “Who is missing? How do you know?” For those who would object that it doesn’t necessarily mean they fathered the direct descendant because the Hebrew word Yalad might just mean “was an ancestor of” I reply “it doesn’t matter because the age of the patriarch is mentioned whether it be father or grandfather”. To those who object “why does it have to be an unbroken lineage?” Seed of the woman vs. the seed of the serpent. Genesis tracks the unbroken royal line of the Seed of the woman as each generation looked for healing of the curses of sin. We know that the Matthew lineage has purposeful omissions for purposes of symmetry, but the other lineages (with their ages) show that Jesus is indeed the promised Kinsman Redeemer, who would crush the head of the serpent. Those, who would assume that there are genealogical omissions in Genesis/Chronicles/Luke are faced with the unenviable task of trying to show WHO is missing, how they know it, and how the line of kings remains verifiable in Jesus
Lastly: Mark 10:6 “for at the beginning of creation God made them male and female” Jesus is confirming that it was the beginning when He created everything else that He made mankind. Remember, Jesus is the Creator: He would know. Those who have fallen prey to the lure of the modern scientific paradigm may say “That passage is just about marriage”, but this objection ignores the actual words that Jesus said. Would you contend with Him, that the very specific words that He used are unimportant? If beginning has any meaning at all, then it must be referring to the creation week and not as old earthers claim 13.787 billion years after creation. To say that “the beginning” can mean anything from 14 dozen hours to 13.787 billion years ago renders the word as meaningless. It literally destroys language
Consistency
If fellow brothers who deny YEC would apply the same level of skepticism they do against Genesis 1 and Exodus 20 to other parts of scripture, you might hear:
“Of course the plagues against Egypt were just symbolic. There’s no way that an entire river turned to blood. God was just saying metaphorically that it’s the blood of Jesus that saves you. Besides there’s no record of the Nile turning to blood in Egyptian writings”
“When we look at ancient near eastern writings like the Sumerians, there are many stories like that of Samson, who had superhuman strength, so the Bible’s account of a man whose strength relied on the length of his hair is figurative in nature. Samson, while interesting, is hyperbolic of a leader, who probably existed but never pushed over a building with his hands”
“Jesus didn’t calm a literal storm. If you look at the Greek, you can reasonably surmise that Jesus comforted the storm in the hearts of his disciples. The storm was just a picture of the trauma that his disciples felt in knowing that their teacher would face persecution. Jesus’s words calmed the storm within them”
But it’s inconsistent for YEC deniers to declare “God could not have created the earth/universe in 6 days in the recent past…but it’s totally possible for a virgin to bear a child”
The text demonstrates that the earth (even though it is the oldest entity in the universe) is young, and Christians should not hold beliefs that are demonstrably false.
History
While the biblical text is the ultimate authority, is it worthwhile to see how Christians from the past have understood the text? Of course. If in my reading of the text, I ‘discover’ something that no one else in history ever thought or saw, I should question my own interpretation. To my knowledge, no Christian before the 18th century is recorded to have believed in what we would today call an old earth. To confirm the young earth consensus of the time from the earliest Christians to just over a century ago (a span of about 1800 years), let’s look back at some of those, who wrote about it (I’ll link the work of Ben Kissling in the show notes):
Irenaeus 165 AD – Earth is less than 8000 years old
Theophilus 180 AD – “All the years from the creation of the world amount to a total of 5698 years”
Julius Africanus 221AD – From the creation to 221 is 5499 years
Origen 248 AD identified his old earth atheist opponent with the implication that those who would deny the biblical age of less than 10,000 years are “assailants of the Christian faith”
Augustine 426 AD who wrote: “reckoning by the sacred writings (the Bible), not 6000 years have passed”
Johannes Kepler 1619 – Earth was created in 4997BC, so was less than 6800 years at the time of Kepler’s writing
James Ussher 1650 Annals of the World – Earth was created in 4004BC, less than 6100 years old
All Reformers accepted young earth (Did God Create in 6 Days? – Pipa)
Charles Lyell in the late 1800s (while not a Christian, recognized the hold that Christianity and thus the dominant paradigm of his time had on scientific studies) in his writings he wished to “free the science from Moses” which as we all know is Genesis
Jack Repcheck wrote a biography of James Hutton called The Man Who Found Time: “The age of the earth is the wedge that shattered the biblically rooted picture of Earth and separated science from theology”
As Christians, which we both are, we should want to interpret scripture consistently and rightly. Consistently by offering the same level of scrutiny to the passages that conflict with modern sensibilities (like Genesis) as those passages deemed crucial to Christian orthodoxy (like the miracles of Jesus). We’ve established that throughout all of church history before the dark times, everyone understood that the earth is young because of what the Bible tells us. And we have clearly established that the Bible teaches that the earth is young. The language demands it and we do not want to hold to teachings that are demonstrably false – especially the clear teachings of God’s Holy Word.
Closing
Thank you Keith for hosting this debate. You’re an above average timekeeper. Thank you Adam for a brotherly conversation on this important topic. Why is this topic important? I’m a Christian. Adam is a Christian. I love God’s Word and Adam loves God’s word. It is a matter both of authority and meaning. Dear Christians, if words have meaning, if language can communicate ideas, and since God has revealed history in his word, then we must hold to young earth creation. In Today’s culture redefining words to accommodate formerly abnormal views has become pervasive and acceptable:
Abortion is healthcare
Trespassing is an armed insurrection
Sexual perversion is normalized by asserting love is love
Anything certain parties don’t like is now defined as racism
Woman is whatever a person feels in their mind
Weird was used to describe the nuclear family
Sadly, this kind of thinking has leaked into the church when the foundations of scripture are compromised:
Day has been redefined as billions of years
Good has been redefined by John Walton as “functional ordering”
God’s creation of the universe in Genesis 1 has been redefined as temple inauguration
Death/suffering/thorns have been redefined as being very good
The beginning has been redefined to be some mysterious eon of time in which virtually all of the supposed billions of years of history have been hidden
As shown tonight, the plain reading of the Bible in its context…what some call the young earth understanding of God’s revelation in the Bible is the correct understanding. Young earth creation has been clearly understood since Moses penned those words and in Christendom until the dark times, until it became fashionable to reinterpret the meanings of words to accommodate modern sensibilities. If you need a guru like John Walton or Hugh Ross to give new definitions to words that no one in Christian history has ever before believed simply to accommodate modern scientific and cultural paradigms, take caution brothers. As Paul warned the Colossians “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ”. If you start with the human traditions of evolution or ancient near east hermeneutics, it will never lead you to Christ as that is not their purpose. But the purpose of God’s word is to lead us to Jesus. Just as the Bereans were called honorable for “searching the scriptures to see if what Paul said was true”, we too should test ideas by what is demonstrably true in God’s word. The Bible tells us that God created the universe very good (completely absent of evil/harm/destruction), but sin affected all of creation – and right there in the garden after the fall, God promised a Redeemer to heal that bondage to corruption against which we still groan today. But because the Bible can be trusted about God’s revelation of the past, we can trust his revelation about the future as we eagerly await the redemption of our bodies and the end of harm & destruction when the knowledge of the LORD fills the earth as the waters cover the sea. As Christians we do not want to have views of demonstrably false things, and it is demonstrably false that the Bible is agnostic to the age of the earth because of text of the Bible itself says. And it says that the earth is young
Post Debate Thoughts
The debate was effectively over when during the cross-examination, asked Adam:
“To accommodate something other than YEC, I can think of dozens of changes that would need to be made to the Bible. Conversely, if God actually did intend to communicate to us that the earth is young, what changes to the text of scripture would need to be made?”‘
His reply was “If he eliminated the 1st two verses of Genesis.” We can deduce from his statement that all of scripture supports the view that the earth is young if you do not hold Adam’s presuppositions. Now Adam has presupposed that Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 refer to God’s assembly of preexisting materials into the planet we see today and there are eons of time hidden in those verses that prevent us from knowing how old the earth is. In order to hold this presupposition, Adam has to ignore Exodus 20:9-11 and Mark 10:6, which if you watch the debate, this is exactly what he did. He tried very hard to dismiss the obvious connections of the creation of the waters and the earth in Exodus 20:9-11 and even laughed off the words of Jesus as referring to “the beginning”. Adam’s presuppositions are also at odds with the biblical text itself. No English translation supports his view, and if you say “well, but the original Hebrew…”, then you must conclude that you know Hebrew better than the 1000s of Hebrew scholars that have translated the text for hundreds of years.
Another of Adam’s dismissals is the idea of what the church has taught exclusively for thousands of years: the earth is young. He said in the debate that it’s “irrelevant” to this debate. While it is not authoritative, it is certainly relevant. Adam and I are both Christians and we both agree that the Bible is the authority, so our difference is over interpretation. If this debate had some different opinions over the course of church history prior to the dominant and oppressive modern paradigm, he might have a point. But the young earth view is exclusive from the beginning to hyperbolically 15 minutes ago.
I’ll repeat my contention from the opening: If in my reading of the text, I ‘discover’ something that no one else in history ever thought or saw, I should question my own interpretation. YOU should question my new and exciting interpretations that no one has ever seen before. And this is what we see with Adam’s interpretation: no one has ever seen his view in all of church history.
Lastly, because there is a strong cultural pull to be in alignment with what “science” teaches, we will look to see what some of Adam’s underlying assumptions are. The allure of being concordant with the dominant modern paradigm can be enticing. You can see this enticement from Adam in his other interviews with/about young earth creationists:
“I would be all too happy to see young earth creationism to be proven correctly scientifically…The Bible is the driving force for pretty much all of this (YEC view) And not that the Bible shouldn’t be our authority…”
“The only reason that I don’t believe that (sun stood still in the sky) is because of modern day science“
“I’m willing to leave more of those discussions (age of the earth) up to the scientists”
“If I’m going to say that the earth is billions of years old, that’s clearly a scientific question. Unless someone can show me a passage in scripture, it’s a scientific question”
In matters of history, historical documentation is the primary and authoritative source for answering those questions. The Bible IS that historical documentation and Christians have abdicated the authority of the Bible in favor of the dominant modern paradigm. Adam is simply incorrect about history being a scientific question. Questions of history should be answered – not by extrapolations – but by historical documentation
Dr. Ross sent me his book almost a year ago and I finished reading it and annotating it within a few months. So, as I have gone back and read through the chapter again for the book review, I am not really finding anything new. From beginning to end, I have found that Dr. Ross although he claims that the Bible is his highest authority, he sees the modern academic paradigm as the highest interpretive authority and conforms his reading of the Bible to accommodate it.
In his personal testimony, we see evidence of this
I did not converse with a Christian about spiritual matters until I was 27. Studies in science consumed all my time and eventually convinced me, at age 15 that a transcendent God must exist. At the time, I doubted that a God who created a hundred billion trillion stars would care much about frail humans on an insignificant planet…In my first reading of Genesis 1, I saw indications that the creation days were long periods of time
If you teach people that the universe is billions of years old, by the time they are almost 30 years old (as Ross admits that he was) and have been indoctrinated by this mantra, they will try to fit everything they see into that worldview…including the Bible.
These are the parts of the text that Dr. Ross felt there was plasticity which would allow him to redefine the scriptures to accommodate the modern academic paradigm
The timing of Eve’s creation
He does not explain specifically here why he thinks this allows for creation days to be very long periods, but we can infer from a paragraph on the previous page why he thinks this is plausible. “Eve was created on the same day as Adam (the sixth) but not until after Adam took care of several large tasks.”
This sounds like the easily refuted argument that he used from chapter 7, when he claimed that Adam had four careers so the text could not possibly have been talking about a single day. His personal incredulity and injection of outside influence completely discounts Ross’s wild claim
The lack of an evening and morning for the seventh day
Clearly, Dr. Ross sees the importance of the evening/morning pattern when God revealed his creative works for 85% of the creation week. What’s not clear is why Dr. Ross takes the single example of missing morning/evening pattern and creates a rule for it. Dr. Ross’s shallow reading of the text ignores the deeper context and exegesis of Exodus 20 when the days are clearly defined with unmistakable 24 hour boundaries.
The Genesis 2:4 usage of the word “day” in reference to the entire creation week
So, at best, Ross can only say that the Hebrew word for day (yom) can have the colloquial understanding of a week of time…not the billions and billions and billions of years necessary to accommodate the modern academic paradigm. Biblical creationists agree that there is flexibility in the Hebrew word ‘yom’, but exegetically, it must fit the context, and in the context of Genesis 1, we can easily conclude from the text that it is signifying days as we know them today (24 hours).
I was especially intrigued by God’s creation hiatus following the six prolific creation periods.
We should all be intrigued by God’s creation hiatus, but it would be wildly bizarre to assume there were suddenly billions of years injected into the text from that thought
Finally, here was an explanation for the fossil record enigma
There are three things to keep in mind when interpreting scripture: context, context and context. When we view the scripture in context there was unquestionably a global flood that adequately (and more correctly) explains the fossil record…so the enigma is for the old earthist, who must redefine a world-consuming flood to mean a minor middle eastern rain storm and then create epicycles to explain both the text and modern observations
Dr. Ross continues at the bottom of pg242 and top of pg243 with the strange explanation for what it means to love the LORD with all of your mind
Loving God with “all your mind” means looking beyond the most simplistic interpretation of a given text, especially if that interpretation leads to complications and convolutions of other texts…Yet, ironically, a 24-hour creation day interpretation of Genesis 1 (and 2) complicates and convolutes at least aspects of God’s creation story – the sequence of events, the meaning of Adam’s work and words, and the speed of biological development.
Speaking of irony-> Just above Dr. Ross admitted that after almost 30 years of indoctrination in the modern academic paradigm, on his 1st reading of Genesis, his simplistic interpretation was that God created over billions of years…just as he’d been taught his whole life. So, clearly he’s only against OTHER people’s simplistic interpretation of Genesis 1.
Regarding his claim that the biblical creationist’s interpretation of Genesis 1 complicates and convolutes the aspects of the creation story, Dr. Ross AGAIN upholds the modern academic paradigm and demands that the Bible’s reading be conformed to those assumptions.
And as was shown in Chapter 4 and chapter 5 reviews when Dr. Ross attempted to claim that ALL of church history believed in old earthism, he was WRONG. Old earthism is a modern concoction that attempts to dissolve the modern academic paradigm into biblical interpretation, but as we see, they are like oil and water with no ability to mix.
On p244 Ross asks the question
How Did Adam Do So Much?…Similarly, for Adam to have named all of Eden’s animals within a few hours would seem to shrink not just the size but also the bounty of Eden…species
While I already covered Ross’s misunderstanding of scripture in my review of chapter 7, it doesn’t hurt to quickly address his repeated conflation of species and kinds. Kinds ≠ Species. The biblical kind is defined in Genesis 1 simply denoted a creature’s ability to reproduce at the time of creation. Since there have been many mutations, many creatures that were formerly able to reproduce lost the ability to reproduce. This does not mean they were not originally created as the same kind. But what this means is that Kind is more synonymous with the modern scientific distinction of family.
This means that Adam did not have to name millions of species as is claimed by Ross. Adam could have take care of his divinely-appointed job of naming the animals much more quickly by naming animals in groups
At the bottom of p244 Dr. Ross says
Young-earth creationists see as the futility of attempting to integrate Genesis with the scientific paradigm arises from a subtle error in applying a basic interpretive principle “Begin by establishing [not assuming] the point of view.” The result is a scientifically implausible order of creation events”
A few of things with this quote. Dr. Ross projects his own shortcomings in interpretation onto biblical creationists. Firstly, He conflates science with the modern academic paradigm as he has done throughout his book. Young earth creationists have no interest in trying to integrate Genesis with the modern academic paradigm. The observations of today are completely in accord with what we read in scripture. It is the old earthers like Ross, who have undertaken the mission of trying to integrate the modern academic paradigm with scripture. Secondly, the error is on the side of old earthers, who inject their assumptions from the modern academic paradigm into their biblical interpretation. Biblical creationists rather start with the basic interpretive principle that what God revealed in his word is true, so what we observe today is in accord with what He revealed in the Bible. Regarding his quote about the implausible order of creation events, you can see that Ross rejects the order of creation events that God revealed in scripture in order to accommodate naturalist assumptions.
On pg247-248 Ross unsuccessfully attempts to push the inconsistencies of his biblical interpretations with the observations onto biblical creationists.
A few purported conflicts between the Bible [old earth interpretations] and the fossil record have arisen…
The conflicts arise only for the old earther since the catastrophic worldwide flood is the only sufficient explanation for the observations. For the old earther, it is assumed that fossils were buried in the order that the soil-of-the-time was exposed as the top soil and that there were epochs when certain creatures did not exist. Dr Ross believes this imperative, but there are out-of-place (for the old earther) fossils that are discordant with those assumptions.
Genesis 1 gives the order of God’s creative works, but in both Dr. Ross’s posted timeline, which he posted years ago and on p249 we can see that Dr. Ross tries very hard to inject the modern academic paradigm into scripture
There are several problems with his chart, but I want to point out a particularly grievous problem in rows 9 and 10. Ross tells us that God’s last creative work was Adam and Eve, but just prior in row 9, Ross tells us that the Australian aboriginals emerged prior to Adam and Eve. This is both a terrible assumption and racist. Now, I do not believe Ross is a racist, but his views of the modern academic paradigm as an authority over scripture has resulted in a view that has racist implications.
As biblical creationists, we can praise God for the consistent nature of his revelation. We do not have to redefine the words in the Bible to accommodate modern academic paradigms or cultural changes in sexuality or political revolutions as we have seen Dr. Ross do. God’s Word is eternal and we can trust God to keep his word regarding the future since we can trust his revelation from the past.
ApoloJedi 