How Do We Understand Genesis? A Response To Dr. William Lane Craig

Editor's Note: Corrected a spelling error for Bishop James Ussher.

A little over a year ago, Dr. William Lane Craig (founder of Reasonable Faith) announced that he would begin a study of the Genesis account of creation, an admitted area of weakness for him. The podcast where he made this announcement can be found here, and I would urge you to listen to it before reading the rest of this article. It's only 20 minutes long.

Before going further, I would like to applaud Dr. Craig for taking on this topic. The creation of the universe and subsequent fall of man into sin is critically important to the gospel message. I have no reason to doubt that he is striving to engage with Genesis in an honest way. That being said, Craig made some statements that I'd like to respond to here, as I find them worrisome.

Firstly, Dr. Craig makes the curious remark that "the first 11 chapters of Genesis are troubling for everybody" (basically from creation to the flood, to the Tower of Babel). I disagree with this, as I find nothing especially troubling about what Moses wrote here. It's very clear historical narrative with little ambiguity. The "troubling" part only comes when you subject the Bible to modern secular scientific dogma (scientism), a philosophy which accepts the claims made "science" as the only source of truth. Given this constraint, I can assure that Genesis will always lose. However, this is not the situation where we find ourselves.

Genesis is a historical record of the creation as well as the origin of God's chosen people Israel. Creation as described in Genesis 1 is not a natural process, but rather a supernatural event. It is recorded in history but cannot be studied scientifically. We can't subject Genesis to scientific study for the simple reason that we weren't there. Furthermore, the worldview of Genesis is supernatural. The worldview of scientism is materialistic naturalism. Why would we expect this book to meet the standards set by those that reject God's existence to begin with?

To emphasize this point, let's consider the next 11 chapters of Genesis, so Genesis 12 through 22. Are there any events recorded that modern scientism would not reject out of hand?

• 12:1 — The Lord speaks directly to Abram
• 12:17 — The Lord afflicts the Egyptians for Sarai’s sake
• 14:18 — Melchizedek appears
• 15:1 — The Lord speaks to Abram in a vision
• 15:17 — A smoking fire pot and a flaming torch (the Lord) pass through animals that were cut in half
• 16:7 — Angel of the Lord visits Hagar
• 17:1 — The Lord appears to Abram
• 18:1 — The Lord appears to Abraham
• 18:22 — Abraham argues with the Lord
• 19:1 — Two angels visit Lot at Sodom
• 19:11 — Men of Sodom blinded by angels
• 19:24 — The Lord rains down sulfur and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah
• 19:26 — Lot’s wife turns to salt
• 20:3 — The Lord appears to Abimelech in a dream
• 21:5 — Isaac born to Sarah at very old age
• 22:2 — The Lord tests Abraham
• 22:12 — The Angel of the Lord commands Abraham not to sacrifice his son Isaac

I hope the point is clear. None of these events would be possible within a materialistic worldview, but for some reason Christians seek out secular explanations for specific events in Genesis, creation week especially. This is no way to do exegesis. The worldview of Genesis (and indeed the entire Bible) is supernatural in nature, one in which God is sovereign and actively engaged in the events taking place.

From here, Dr. Craig launches into a set of questions, such as "Was there really a talking snake that tempted man into sin?" To that I would answer, "Was there really an incarnation in which God the Son took on flesh, died, and rose again?" The historicity of Genesis should not be in question, unless you're also going to question the historicity of the rest of Scripture. There's no indication that Genesis 1 through 11 are allegorical, and if it is, there's no indication of where that allegory should stop. Choosing to feel "okay" about Genesis 12 onward is arbitrary.

Next, Craig concedes the point that Genesis 1 through 11 appear to be only a few thousand years ago (according to Bishop Ussher, creation week started on 4004 B.C. based on the genealogies). I once again appreciate the intellectual honesty to admit that the text (at face value) is describing events from a few thousand years ago. But then he makes an interesting point which betrays his underlying bias: "And yet [Bishop Ussher's date estimate] runs very counter to what paleo-anthropology tells us about human origins. Anatomically modern human beings like you and me originated somewhere around 200,000 years ago." I hope you see the problem here. If there's any disagreement between the standard geological timeline (Charles Lyell, 1830) and the biblical text (Holy Spirit, I AM), Craig will side with the former and give no benefit of the doubt to the latter whatsoever. Of course, Lyell assumed uniformitarianism, that there was no global flood which would completely decimate the fossil record. The scoffers described in 2 Peter 3:4 come to mind on this point.

He gets into the weeds a bit regarding Neanderthals and Denisovans, which I won't comment on except to say that his conclusions once again assume a uniformitarian perspective.

There is one final point to address, and it is regarding the genre of Genesis. Dr. Craig says that how you understand the genre will determine your interpretive paradigm. He's quite right on this point. But then he says the following, and it's troubling to say the least:

"Although Young Earth Creationists take this to straightforward factual report, I must say very few if any commentators believe that. I think that the average pastor or layman would be shocked, Kevin, at how non-literal most evangelical Bible-believing commentators to be. They don't think that there was a talking snake, or magical trees, to eat from in the garden. They don't think that there was this universal deluge that drowned every living thing on the earth, and that Noah took on board the ark elephants and giraffes."

This is really the crux of the matter. Dr. Craig is going to come to his conclusion based on some sort of consensus of theologians, which he will choose himself based on his own preference. Does it really matter what "most" commentators say, if what they say is in contradiction to what Scripture clearly teaches? Do they really believe the Bible, or only the parts that are scientifically satisfying? We aren't told. He's looking at "options on the table" for what Genesis 1 through 11 is describing, but it's very clear that his a priori assumption is that the 6000 year old universe is completely out of bounds, since it disagrees the "most" with scientism that cannot be questioned. This is a fool's errand since no amount of hand-waving will be able to remove the supernatural from the pages of Scripture. God left no room for that. Thank you for your time.

Tiber Talk #1: What was the Primary Issue of the Reformation?

Editor's Note: This is the first entry in an ongoing series of blog articles dealing with Roman Catholicism, from a reformed perspective. "Crossing the Tiber" or "swimming the Tiber" is a reference to protestants choosing to convert to Rome, since the Tiber River is commonly associated with the Vatican.

One thing that I've noticed in my discussions with Roman Catholics is that it's very easy to get off in the weeds. What is the main issue that divides Reformed Protestants and Catholics? Indulgences? Mary worship? Transubstantiation? I would suggest that the dividing line exists at a more fundamental level.

The nature of the gospel is really the key issue here. Many protestants can become confused when first encountering Rome's claims about the grace of God. It's quite common for reformed folks to think that Catholics don't believe in grace at all, but rather it's a works-based system. The truth of the matter is quite a bit more nuanced. Both the reformed and catholic paradigms affirm the necessity of grace in salvation, but the reformers clashed with the Romanists by demanding that grace was also sufficient for salvation as well. In other words, salvation is by grace alone.

To demonstrate this, we shall now turn to the Council of Trent (1545-1563), an ecumenical council of the Roman Catholic Church which was convened in order to counter the teachings of the Reformation. In it, Rome put forth the idea that salvation is a cooperation of grace and works, after the initial (prevenient) grace received at conversion. From Session VI, Chapter V:

The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight. Whence, when it is said in the sacred writings: Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you, we are admonished of our liberty; and when we answer; Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted, we confess that we are prevented by the grace of God. (emphasis mine)

This is key to the Roman Catholic gospel, that one's own works actually cooperate with the work of God in salvation. Inherent in this is a confusion of justification with sanctification, that we are progressively justified over time, and so must strive to remain in a state of grace in order to avoid a lengthy stay in purgatory. In addition to stating this, Rome goes even farther by pronouncing an anathema (cursing) of anyone that teaches otherwise. From Session VI, Canon IX:

If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

By taking such a stance, it is my contention that Rome has anathematized the true gospel. There are certainly other problems with Rome's teachings, but this one is central to the divide that separates those on either side of the Tiber. It is not my purpose today to prove from the Scriptures that salvation is by grace alone, but rather only to show that the Catholic system is far different in terms of how it describes justification. It is a difference worth considering!

Many thanks go out to Dr. James White of Alpha & Omega Ministries, as his teaching has been quite formative for me on this and many other issues. Check out his content here!

The Distant Starlight Problem, Solved?

Editor's Note: In the original version, I misrepresented Dr. Russell Humphreys' theory, saying that time was moving faster on earth relative to distant celestial objects. The reverse is actually true. I have updated the post.

Maybe it's just me, but it sure seems like Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is becoming an endangered species. This is the view that the universe was created about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, based on a view of Genesis 1 as taking place in six 24 hour days. Most other Christians have accepted an old universe view more in line with the modern scientific community (i.e., the universe is 13.8 billion years old, and the earth is 4.5 billion years old). They do so by taking a less literal interpretation of Genesis 1, which can fall into several categories: Day-Age Theory, Framework Hypothesis, Theistic Evolution, and Gap Theory to name a few.

From the outset, I should say that I do not hold to YEC based primarily on scientific evidence. Rather, it's my understanding of Genesis itself that informs my view. When I read Genesis 1 in the most straightforward way possible, in the context of the rest of the book as well as the Bible, I find six 24 hour days to be the most natural reading of the text. I don't see any compelling reason from the creation narrative itself to allegorize the account. The scientific evidence for YEC is interesting to me, but it's not the driving force. All that said, there is one challenge to a young universe that has always troubled me: the Distant Starlight Problem (DSP).

The DSP, for those that aren't familiar, is a very straightforward challenge. The idea is that we can view the light from celestial objects from many millions and even billions of light years away, which is a potential problem for YEC since the light would not have enough time to travel those distances. And to the best of my knowledge, the distances are not in question. So how is this resolved?

Many men much smarter than I have attempted to explain the DSP using a YEC paradigm. Dr. Russell Humphreys has posited a time dilation theory, wherein time speeds up as space is being stretched out. So, time on earth was moving much slower relative to that of distant celestial objects. Dr. Jason Lisle has also tackled this problem, and he does so by saying that the one-way speed of light could be much faster than what we have been able to measure. Thus, the light could have arrived at earth in a shorter amount of time. While I find these views interesting, I don't see them as overly compelling.

I have resolved this issue in my own mind based on my reading of the Genesis 1 alone. I'm not trained in astrophysics, so I lack the expertise to make a scientific argument. So with the lengthy preamble now concluded, let's head to the text.

Unsurprisingly, our journey begins on Day 1 of creation week:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.     ~Genesis 1:1-5

In Day 1, God creates light that shines on the earth. He does not create any light source, just the light. On Day 4, He will create the sun, which will then shine on the earth instead of this supernatural light, which allows there to be 24 hour days prior to the sun's inception. Note: in order to have a 24 hour day, one only needs to have light shining on the earth from a fixed location, while the earth makes a full rotation.

In pictorial form, Day 1 would look something like this, based on my understanding of the traditional YEC view:

So, we have earth, which is currently only made up of water (at least at the surface), and we have light shining on it from the direction of where the sun would eventually reside. There's no sun there, though.

I would like to add to this model by pointing out that the text itself does not place a limit on the light that was created on Day 1 (i.e., not just the light from the future sun). So while I would agree with the above diagram, I find it to be lacking. Here is what I'm proposing:

Instead of just light from the future sun, I am positing that light from future galaxies, nebulae, and stars is also created here. In other words, all light from all future light sources is created, and it is fully "mature," in that it is already reaching earth from its future source location. In the same way, God would create human beings and animals as mature adults, not infants. In this sense, the creation of light is consistent with the rest of God's plan for earth and the cosmos.

This is a variation of the light in transit theory, that God created light already fully formed as it reaches earth. The difference here is that I am proposing that all light waves in the universe were created on Day 1, not Day 4. To my knowledge, no one has proposed this as a possible solution to the DSP, but I'm happy to be corrected on that.

To complete history of light, let's move on to Day 4:

And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.     ~Genesis 1:14-19

Here is the corresponding diagram for Day 4, based on the previous diagram I created for Day 1:

So, the light waves still exist, but they are now "linked" to actual sources of light. We also have a moon to shine on the earth at night, but it doesn't have light of its own but rather it just reflects light from the sun. In summary, the celestial objects "take over" the duties of shining light, which was previously being done supernaturally via "sourceless" light!

In conclusion, I find this to be a simple and elegant solution to the Distant Starlight Problem. I am 100% reliant on the text alone and do not impose anything upon it. I'd love to know what you think in the comments below. Thank you for your time.