Spurgeon Preached Old Earth Creationism

[inquiring mind]

The gap theory may have made some sense when the earth was thought to have been destroyed at the end of each era to be rebuilt again. But now that we know that the earth and life have had a continuous history, with no periods when earth was void of all life, the gap theory makes no sense. When after dinosaurs was the earth without form and void? When after dinosaurs was there a need for the events of Gens 1:2 through the rest of the chapter?

Since I have repeatedly said that we don't know, your comment 'now that we know' makes the discussion difficult.

 

[inquiring mind]

Could you specify what you mean by "projected back prior to the point it has been observed"?

Basing what may have taken place on what is taking place today, or on what interpretation of evidence today leads you to believe happened then.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You're insinuating God is deceptive, not me.

It's implied by the evidence and your insistence on a short age.

There are hundreds of thousands of layers in the Antarctic ice.
The layers are consistent with an annual deposition pattern.
There are radioactive markers consistent with the notion #layers = #years.
There are dust grains and volcanic ash in the layers that can be dated and are also consistent with the annual layer hypothesis.

Therefore, either:

1. The ice sheet is hundreds of thousands of years old and built by slow annual accumulation,

-OR-

2. The ice sheet is much younger and *someone* made it look like it does to provide indications of vast age.

If you want to pick #2, then someone is deceptive and that someone could not be a human.

This is your choice to resolve the evidence.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Spurgeon explicitly taught that the earth is many million of years old. For example, in his sermon, “The Power of the Holy Spirit” that he preached on June 17, 1855, he said (as is shown in his manuscripts of his sermons),

In the 2d verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, wherein man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion. He allowed the inward fires to burst up from beneath, and melt all the solid matter, so that all kinds of substances were commingled in one vast mass of disorder.​

 

[SelfSim]

... and so?

Is this significant news somehow?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

... and so?

Is this significant news somehow?

Yes, it is.

A rumor is currently circulating on the internet saying that Spurgeon taught YEC. False claims about very important Christian preachers and teachers need to be refuted.

 

[Brother-Mike]

Thanks for posting @PrincetonGuy - very interesting to see Spurgeon’s perspective here, especially for Christians that might still be weighing up their own thoughts on the matter

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Yes... thanks for sharing.

 

[St_Worm2]

A rumor is currently circulating on the internet saying that Spurgeon taught YEC. False claims about very important Christian preachers and teachers need to be refuted.

Hello PrincetonGuy, I've begun looking into this, and this is what I've found (so far) concerning Spurgeon's beliefs.

Old Earth, yes.
Evolution, of any kind/of any creature, no.​

I have found his views on this topic to be interesting (for Spurgeon anyway) since they seem to be lacking in both consistency and thoroughness. There appears to be much more to consider however (which I hope will change my opinion .. concerning consistency/thoroughness), and if/when I find more, I will report back about it (if I think that it's worth sharing).

Thank you for broaching this topic

God bless you!!

--David
p.s. - here are just a couple of short excepts from Spurgeon's writings concerning "evolution". A student once asked Mr. Spurgeon, “Are we justified in receiving Mr. Darwin’s or any other theory of evolution?” Spurgeon's answer (in small part) was:

Does Revelation teach us evolution? It never has struck me, and it does not strike now, that the theory of evolution can, by any process of argument, be reconciled with the inspired record of the Creation. You remember how it is distinctly stated, again and again, that the Lord made each creature “after its kind.”

There are abundant evidences that one creature inclines towards another in certain respects, for all are bound together in a wondrous way which indicates that they are all the product of God’s creative will; but what the advocates of evolution appear to forget is, that there is nowhere to be discovered an actual chain of growth from one creature to another.​

.

 

[AV1611VET]

Spurgeon Preached Old Earth Creationism

Do you agree with him?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Hello PrincetonGuy, I've begun looking into this, and this is what I've found (so far) concerning Spurgeon's beliefs.

Old Earth, yes.
Evolution, of any kind/of any creature, no.​

I have found his views on this topic to be interesting (for Spurgeon anyway) since they seem to be lacking in both consistency and thoroughness. There appears to be much more to consider however (which I hope will change my opinion .. concerning consistency/thoroughness), and if/when I find more, I will report back about it (if I think that it's worth sharing).

Thank you for broaching this topic

God bless you!!

--David
p.s. - here are just a couple of short excepts from Spurgeon's writings concerning "evolution". A student once asked Mr. Spurgeon, “Are we justified in receiving Mr. Darwin’s or any other theory of evolution?” Spurgeon's answer (in small part) was:

Does Revelation teach us evolution? It never has struck me, and it does not strike now, that the theory of evolution can, by any process of argument, be reconciled with the inspired record of the Creation. You remember how it is distinctly stated, again and again, that the Lord made each creature “after its kind.”

There are abundant evidences that one creature inclines towards another in certain respects, for all are bound together in a wondrous way which indicates that they are all the product of God’s creative will; but what the advocates of evolution appear to forget is, that there is nowhere to be discovered an actual chain of growth from one creature to another.​

.

Hi David,
Can you post quotes from Spurgeon that show a lack of consistency? Was he not consistent regarding what he said about old earth creation and about the theory of evolution (2 very different concepts)? Are you careful to read Spurgeon’s own words rather than deliberate misrepresentations of what he preached? (Such misrepresentations can be found on some YEC websites on which they were, for a while, grasping at straws, but when all the straws broke, they began grasping at wet noodles.

There is nothing more important to me than the truth, so I would appreciate your sharing your findings with us.

 

[Estrid]

Spurgeon explicitly taught that the earth is many million of years old. For example, in his sermon, “The Power of the Holy Spirit” that he preached on June 17, 1855, he said (as is shown in his manuscripts of his sermons),

In the 2d verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, wherein man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion. He allowed the inward fires to burst up from beneath, and melt all the solid matter, so that all kinds of substances were commingled in one vast mass of disorder.​

Not bad, though geology, primitive as it was, was
a popular field, and that the earth was vastly older
than indicated by literal genesis was accepted by thinking
people, so if anything he is trying to educate his
congregation a bit.

Though the last couple of lines read like fantasy
concocted to try to match Genesis.

 

[Estrid]

Hi David,
Can you post quotes from Spurgeon that show a lack of consistency? Was he not consistent regarding what he said about old earth creation and about the theory of evolution (2 very different concepts)? Are you careful to read Spurgeon’s own words rather than deliberate misrepresentations of what he preached? (Such misrepresentations can be found on some YEC websites on which they were, for a while, grasping at straws, but when all the straws broke, they began grasping at wet noodles.

There is nothing more important to me than the truth, so I would appreciate your sharing your findings with us.

The truth, and consistency. Yes. Good things to
be concerned with.

Let' us look at integrity, a state of being complete
and undivided. Consistency.
Next, look at intellectual integrity.
There's handy Google entries that will take you
through those in detail

Your man there starts out staking his stand in
intellectual dishonesty re evolution and his chosen
interpretation of genesis.
The truth won't emerge from dishonesty.

Does that need explaining?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Spurgeon explicitly taught that the earth is many million of years old. For example, in his sermon, “The Power of the Holy Spirit” that he preached on June 17, 1855, he said (as is shown in his manuscripts of his sermons),

In the 2d verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, wherein man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion. He allowed the inward fires to burst up from beneath, and melt all the solid matter, so that all kinds of substances were commingled in one vast mass of disorder.​

Ah, Spurgeon conveniently found a gap between Gen 1:1 and 1:2.

But actually he didn't find that gap there. Like many other preachers in his day, he simply inserted it there to match his catastrophism.

And the catastrophism they taught was consistent with what they were finding in the fossil record, that there were many different eras with different life forms in the past. They figured that all those previous worlds were wiped out by catastrophies.

Science has come a long way since Spurgeon. Those creatures down there were not odd dead-end path, but they were part of that vast array of animals which included our ancestors. See Did We Evolve? - The Mind Set Free.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science has come a long way since Spurgeon. Those creatures down there were not odd dead-end path, but they were part of that vast array of animals which included our ancestors. See Did We Evolve? - The Mind Set Free.

Nope.

No mushrooms in my family album.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Nope.

No mushrooms in my family album.

No mushrooms in my family album either.

But many generations back my ancestor was quite a handsome ape.

The fossil record is clear that the earth was here for many millions of years, and that life was quite different ages ago. In Spurgeon's day, before Darwin, many accepted this obvious fact, and attributed these fossils to a world that had been destroyed many years ago (before Gen 1:2). Thus, they could go along with the obvious findings in nature, without believing evolution.

But then Darwin came along and explained that those were not dead-end worlds that were annihilated, that those fossils are representative of our ancestors. So many Christians today can no longer accept the obvious facts written in the rocks. For now it is clear that the rocks show evolution, not annihilated worlds that went nowhere. Sadly, many people have chosen to ignore the evidence in the rocks.

But Spurgeon and others knew those fossils were down there, that they were real remains of real animals, and that life was very different in those days.

 

[inquiring mind]

No mushrooms in my family album either.

But many generations back my ancestor was quite a handsome ape.

The fossil record is clear that the earth was here for many millions of years, and that life was quite different ages ago. In Spurgeon's day, before Darwin, many accepted this obvious fact, and attributed these fossils to a world that had been destroyed many years ago (before Gen 1:2). Thus, they could go along with the obvious findings in nature, without believing evolution.

But then Darwin came along and explained that those were not dead-end worlds that were annihilated, that those fossils are representative of our ancestors. So many Christians today can no longer accept the obvious facts written in the rocks. For now it is clear that the rocks show evolution, not annihilated worlds that went nowhere. Sadly, many people have chosen to ignore the evidence in the rocks.

But Spurgeon and others knew those fossils were down there, that they were real remains of real animals, and that life was very different in those days.

Spurgeon, like most people, wants to give seemingly logical answers to what is made out to be factual, especially when it is presented by academia. But, we only interpret. We interpret Bible accounts and genealogy, and scientific data, all based on our knowledge. And, as some famous person once said, our knowledge keeps about as well as fish. When it comes to the ‘how’ God did things, beyond the process He revealed to us in the Bible, specifically His use of time… the truth is we don’t know.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Spurgeon, like most people, wants to give seemingly logical answers to what is made out to be factual, especially when it is presented by academia. But, we only interpret. We interpret Bible accounts and genealogy, and scientific data, all based on our knowledge. And, as some famous person once said, our knowledge keeps about as well as fish. When it comes to the ‘how’ God did things, beyond the process He revealed to us in the Bible, specifically His use of time… the truth is we don’t know.

Regarding the age of the earth, there is overwhelming evidence that it is many millions of years old. See How Old is the Earth? - The Mind Set Free

Regarding the record in the rocks that lifeforms were quite different in the past, see Did We Evolve? - The Mind Set Free. Again, overwhelming evidence.

And regarding the evidence that these fossils are consistent with evolution, see also
see Did We Evolve? - The Mind Set Free.

Spurgeon had evidence for the first two. Like many other Christians of the day, he accepted the evidence in the rocks and inserted it all between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. In Spurgeon's day it was OK for fundamentalists to admit the obvious, that the rocks told of eras with different life.

But when Darwin came along, and when it became evident the rocks also indicated evolution, that is when Christians began to bulk and turn against the evidence.

 

[inquiring mind]

I have no problem with anyone putting their interpretation between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, but we still don't know.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I have no problem with anyone putting their interpretation between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, but we still don't know.

Why don't you know? That's odd. After all, there is abundant evidence that the earth is old. If there is abundant evidence, why not accept it as being true?