Young Earth Creation

[4x4toy]

YEC here and more convinced than ever

 

[Calminian]

Hi Calminian,

How do you know it's not a salvation issue? I certainly don't. I think that our best response to that should be simply that "we don't know." The words of God are taken very, very seriously in Scripture as I'm sure you're well aware. Here are a few examples of what I'm talking about:

"17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth." Jn. 17:17 (NRSV)

"3 The tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” 4 But he answered, “It is written,
‘One does not live by bread alone,
but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”" Mt. 4:3-4 (NRSV)

Etc., etc.

Yes, but none of the above speak to salvation, only sanctification. What I know for certain, is no one calling on the Lord will be denied. Perfect theology is not a requirement of salvation, in fact the faith of a mustard seed will gain you entrance. And I'm thankful for that, as I know I don't have perfect theology.

That said, I do believe a rejection of the plain reading of Genesis as consequences. I would even go so far as to say it has contributed to the decline of the church. But to make it a salvation issues is actually an attack on the simple gospel and I can never take it that far, nor would any reputable creationist from AiG, to CMI, to ICR, etc.

 

[Meowzltov]

Perfect theology is not a requirement of salvation, in fact the faith of a mustard seed will gain you entrance. And I'm thankful for that, as I know I don't have perfect theology.

Same here. All I can say is, AMEN.

 

[Achilles6129]

Yes, but none of the above speak to salvation, only sanctification.

Isn't sanctification a part of salvation?

What I know for certain, is no one calling on the Lord will be denied. Perfect theology is not a requirement of salvation, in fact the faith of a mustard seed will gain you entrance. And I'm thankful for that, as I know I don't have perfect theology.

I think our best response is to simply say we don't know. The words of God are taken far too seriously in Scripture to be able to mess around with them and then say "we know for sure that messing around with them has nothing to do with salvation."

 

[Meowzltov]

Isn't sanctification a part of salvation?

Absolutely.

 

[miamited]

The thing is, though, just how much sin did the cross cover? And just how perfect of a faith do we have? If one grows up in today's church he's going to hear compromised views of Genesis from very respected individuals. Did you know CS Lewis did not believe in a literal Adam and Eve? Indeed I was taught false views of Genesis and believed them. I was a gapper and day-ager at times in the past. And I'm certain there are viewpoints I hold today that are not true. And it might be that some of the wrong viewpoints are held due to my own sinful stubbornness. But I cling to the cross of our Creator, and trust the sins are nailed to the cross.

Now I listen to some on this issue and believed they are saved, just confused. I listen to others and hear such distain for God's word I fear they are not truly in Christ and indwelled by the Spirit. But that's a different issue. Some may resist the teachings of Genesis because they truly are unregenerate and resisting the Holy Spirit. But that's not the same as saying all compromisers of Genesis are not saved.

Hi cal,

The cross covers all sin... for those who believe. Do you know if CS Lewis was born again? Is there any possibility that he might end up being one of those crying out to the Lord, 'Lord, Lord...'? Yes, I understand that too many people who attend a fellowship are not fed the truth. We seem to agree that there are pastors out there that aren't teaching the truth, and I'm honestly questioning whether or not CS Lewis knew the truth. Did he claim to be a christian? Sure, but then so do all those pastors that you and I readily agree don't know the truth. So, all I'm saying is that I'm not really comfortable with making a blanket statement like, 'belief in a literal Genesis is not a salvation issue'. You or I don't know that. We may like to think that, but we don't honestly know. What I know is that for some reason I'm not convinced that your statement is the truth.

For me, what it boils down to is this: If I'm born again, then I have the Spirit of the living God with me as my counselor. In that capacity he convicts me of sin, encourages me in the way of righteousness and makes known to me the 'truth'. So, the question must be asked: If I believe that something is the truth, and someone else believes that something else is the truth, is the Holy Spirit doing the work that he's supposed to be doing in both of our lives? It would seem obvious to me that in the case of two contradictory and opposing beliefs, the Holy Spirit cannot be convicting both parties. Lastly, as I believe that you yourself have previously claimed, when we deny some teaching of the Scriptures based primarily on the fact that man says it just ain't so, who then, is our faith in? The 'truth' of man or the 'truth' of God?

So, and I apologize to all those who now see me (although I'm sure many have for some time) as some stick in the mud fundamentalist 'christian' that's causing all the strife in the world, I'm just not sure if your claim is true.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Calminian]

Hi cal,

The cross covers all sin... for those who believe. Do you know if CS Lewis was born again? Is there any possibility that he might end up being one of those crying out to the Lord, 'Lord, Lord...'?

Yes, but this could be true of a young earth creationist as well. The point is irrelevant.

....I'm not really comfortable with making a blanket statement like, 'belief in a literal Genesis is not a salvation issue'. You or I don't know that. We may like to think that, but we don't honestly know. What I know is that for some reason I'm not convinced that your statement is the truth.

But I've not made the claim that those compromising on Genesis are all saved. You've inferred that, but I never made that point. I've merely said that someone can interpret the Bible wrong in places and still be saved. Surely you believe that also. In fact, I would venture to say you probably would admit you likely have some wrong interpretations yourself.

For me, what it boils down to is this: If I'm born again, then I have the Spirit of the living God with me as my counselor. In that capacity he convicts me of sin, encourages me in the way of righteousness and makes known to me the 'truth'. So, the question must be asked: If I believe that something is the truth, and someone else believes that something else is the truth, is the Holy Spirit doing the work that he's supposed to be doing in both of our lives? It would seem obvious to me that in the case of two contradictory and opposing beliefs, the Holy Spirit cannot be convicting both parties. Lastly, as I believe that you yourself have previously claimed, when we deny some teaching of the Scriptures based primarily on the fact that man says it just ain't so, who then, is our faith in? The 'truth' of man or the 'truth' of God?

This is frankly what I was concerned about with your statements. This gets into the idea that there is no volition nor rebellion possible with Spirit indwelled believers. I think it's a dangerous road to take, and may even get you into heresy trouble. Yes, the Holy Spirit indwells us, and convicts us. Does that mean that we are instantly perfected? God forbid.

1John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

In fact, scripture urges us not to grieve the Holy Spirit. Why would this be necessary if this were not possible?

This theology is much more dangerous than Genesis compromise, as it is specifically called out as a doctrine of unbelievers by John.

Brother (and I believe you are a brother, and am hoping you're not embracing fully the heresy I described above) our battle on Genesis is much more difficult than most. Yes, it's about truth, but a truth that many believers have fumbled. Even theological greats like Augustine and Spurgeon have made compromising statements on this issue. And I have no problem confronting them on this issue (or at least their teachings on it). But if we part from the simple gospel, all is lost and the devil who incites unbelief in Genesis as won.

Rom. 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

 

[Calminian]

Isn't sanctification a part of salvation?

No. Justification is the declaration of the accounting of righteousness (apart from works) while sanctification is the process of us becoming more like Christ every day. Then, glorification is the final perfecting of us through new sinless bodies. But until then, we live out our lives here in our physical bodies, falling short everyday.

I think our best response is to simply say we don't know. The words of God are taken far too seriously in Scripture to be able to mess around with them and then say "we know for sure that messing around with them has nothing to do with salvation."

If messing around with them is getting some things wrong, then which of us is not guilty of that at one time or another. How good is your theology. I would say I thank God that perfect theology is not a requirement for salvation. If it were, I'd be lost.

I certainly have my doubts about some Genesis compromisers. To me it seems that loathe the word of God and doubt it at every turn. I can honestly say, I don't know if they are saved. But that's different than saying that getting Genesis wrong may be a salvation issue and keep all compromisers out of heaven. That I can say for certain is not true, given what the Bible says about the free gift of salvation, and the sinful nature of man.

And we all progress at different levels. I used to get Genesis very wrong as a young believer, as I was taught the gap theory and day-age theory.

We can't lose site of the simplicity of the gospel as creationists. That would be going to the other extreme.

 

[Achilles6129]

No. Justification is the declaration of the accounting of righteousness (apart from works) while sanctification is the process of us becoming more like Christ every day. Then, glorification is the final perfecting of us through new sinless bodies. But until then, we live out our lives here in our physical bodies, falling short everyday.

I'm not sure about that at all:

"But we must always give thanks to God for you, brothers and sisters beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the first fruits for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and through belief in the truth." 2 Thess. 2:13 (NRSV)

If messing around with them is getting some things wrong, then which of us is not guilty of that at one time or another. How good is your theology. I would say I thank God that perfect theology is not a requirement for salvation. If it were, I'd be lost.

I'm not talking about being sincerely wrong about something inside of the Bible. Anyone could be sincerely mistaken. I'm talking about the Bible clearly saying one thing and someone else claiming "No, it says something else." That's deliberately contradicting, not being sincerely mistaken through ignorance.

 

[Calminian]

I'm not sure about that at all:

"But we must always give thanks to God for you, brothers and sisters beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the first fruits for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and through belief in the truth." 2 Thess. 2:13 (NRSV)

I'm not talking about being sincerely wrong about something inside of the Bible. Anyone could be sincerely mistaken. I'm talking about the Bible clearly saying one thing and someone else claiming "No, it says something else." That's deliberately contradicting, not being sincerely mistaken through ignorance.

Well if you're saying that a person knows the earth is young, but instead argues that it is old, then yeah, I'd say there's an issue there. He is purposely trying to deceive people. That's the sign of a false teacher and unbeliever. That's different, though, than someone raised in a compromising church and arguing the view of their compromising pastor whom they trust. And the pastor in turn is arguing the view of his seminary professor whom he trusts. And the seminary professor is reading the likes of Charles Hodge, Meredith Kline and others who frankly dropped the ball on this topic. I don't believe Christ will cast these to hell if they confess they are sinners, repent and believe in the risen Christ.

BTW, without getting into a soteriological debate (which is always fun), I don't believe the passage you're quoting is speaking about justification, but rather complete salvation from justification to glorification. In fact if you read the next verse it becomes very apparent.

2Th. 2:13 ...because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, 14 to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Salvation can speak of justification, but also of the entire process to the time we're glorified. Without going into this too deep, that appears to be what's going on here. But justification is something that happened to us at the time of our conversation. We are justified when we are born again, and given the Holy Spirit as a witness to our security.

This justification comes from faith in Christ, and is not lost or taken away if we get the creation account wrong. Yes, there are scenarios, where I would doubt the salvation of certain individuals based on their hostility toward the Bible. The non-concordist movement for instance, seems to be promoted with such a disrespect for Scripture I doubt many of the proponents are in Christ. That said, I also can't say that their false believes in and of themselves, are separating them from God.

I would think we're at least in some agreement, as say you're not sure either.

 

[miamited]

That's different, though, than someone raised in a compromising church and arguing the view of their compromising pastor whom they trust. And the pastor in turn is arguing the view of his seminary professor whom he trusts. And the seminary professor is reading the likes of Charles Hodge, Meredith Kline and others who frankly dropped the ball on this topic. I don't believe Christ will cast these to hell if they confess they are sinners, repent and believe in the risen Christ.

So, it is your position that if we are taught a lie and believe the lie, that won't matter to God? Yet, Jesus said that the teachers of Israel crossed over hell and back to gain a convert and then turned them into a dog of hell also. (my paraphrase) Seems to me that Jesus could have at least offered some comfort to those 'dogs of hell' and finished his comment with: "But that's ok for them because they will have the excuse of having been taught the lies that you teach them."

Sorry, I'm not in agreement with you. It is my understanding that the purpose of the Scriptures, and they are certainly available to everyone here in the states, is that we may each one individually discern the truth. It is the Scriptures, as I understand them, that those people going to some worship service and listening to lies should be then going home and reading for themselves to discern the truth from the lie. When I'm listening to some teacher teach the truth of God, I'm not out there just nodding and smiling agreement to all that is said. I'm not taking in everything that is said without first running it through the Scriptures. Once it passes that test, and we are encouraged to test all things, then I may well offer a hearty amen from the gallery. But friend, there are a lot of things that I hear from various teachers that in my mind I'm saying, 'that just ain't true!' What that person is saying is not in accordance with what the Scriptures say.

So, I certainly hope for the sake of those you are telling that it's ok to believe a lie if that's what they were taught, that you're right.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Calminian]

So, it is your position that if we are taught a lie and believe the lie, that won't matter to God?

No. The fact that something is not directly essential to salvation, does not mean it does not matter, nor does no harm. I take the view of Ken Ham and most other creationists, that the abandonment of Genesis as contributed to the decline of the church, and the decay of the nations as the church loses its relevancy. I believe indirectly, souls are at stake.

As Ken Ham points out,

...the age of the earth and universe is not a salvation issue per se—somebody can be saved even without believing what the Bible says on this issue. But it is a salvation issue indirectly. Christians who compromise on millions of years can encourage others toward unbelief concerning God’s Word and the gospel.​

Sorry, I'm not in agreement with you.

So you don't agree that errors of Genesis has contributed to the decline of the church and the decay of the nations? You don't believe that compromise on millions of years can encourage others toward unbelief concerning God’s Word and the gospel? Well, all I can say, is I disagree with you.

Ted, I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying, and likely what guys like Ken Ham are saying. Let me turn it over to Ham who articulates the issue well in this article. The answer to the title, BTW, is "yes."

Millions of Years—Are Souls at Stake?
by Ken Ham on January 1, 2014

When creationists take a strong stand that God created the earth six thousand years ago, they’re often accused of making this a salvation issue. Well, it isn’t a salvation issue—but it is!

Because Answers in Genesis and other biblical creationists take an authoritative stand on six literal (approximately 24-hour) days of creation and a young (approximately 6,000-year-old) age for the earth and universe, some have mistakenly taken our unwavering stand to mean these beliefs are salvation issues.

However, nowhere does the Bible even imply salvation in Christ is conditioned upon one’s belief concerning the days of creation or the age of the earth or universe.

For instance, Romans 10:9 states, “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”

It does not state, “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, and believe in six literal days of creation and a young earth and universe, you will be saved.”

Salvation is conditional upon faith in Christ—not belief about the six days of creation or the earth’s age. So these are not salvation issues per se. But it is a salvation issue in an indirect sense. Let me explain.

Many Christians, including Christian leaders, believe fossils, the earth, and the universe are millions or billions of years old. I contend that when they accept this timeframe and try to fit millions of years into the Bible, they are violating three vital issues.

An Authority Issue
One cannot get the idea of millions of years from the Bible. This idea comes from outside of Scripture. When a Christian adds millions of years to the Bible and reinterprets the days of creation or tries to fit this extra time into the first verse in Genesis or a supposed gap between the first and second verses, he is allowing fallible man to be in authority over God’s Word.

So I assert that such compromise (which I believe it really is) is setting an example for others that fallible man can take ideas outside of Scripture and reinterpret God’s Word to fit these in. Ultimately, accepting this view means God’s Word is not the final authority and is not without error. It also opens the door to others doing this with other historical claims of Scripture—such as the Resurrection and virgin birth.

A Gospel Issue
Let me set this up with three major points.

First, Genesis 1:29–30 teaches that man and animals were originally vegetarian (before Adam’s sin). How do we know this for sure? Humans weren’t told they could eat meat until after the Flood in Genesis 9:3. This later verse makes it clear that mankind was originally vegetarian, but this changed after the Flood. Verse 30 of Genesis 1 (about animals’ diet) is worded in the same way as verse 29 (man’s diet), so it makes sense that originally the animals were vegetarian, too.

Second, at the end of the Creation Week, God described everything He had made as “very good” (Genesis 1:31).

Third, Genesis 3 makes it clear that the animals (v. 14) and the ground (v. 17) were cursed. And verse 18 makes it clear that thorns came into existence after sin and the Curse: “Both thorns and thistles it [the ground] shall bring forth for you.”

Now the idea that things have been around for millions of years came from the belief that the fossil record was laid down slowly over millions of years, long before man’s existence. So when Christians accept millions of years, they must also accept that the fossil layers were laid down before Adam—before the first human sin.

Yet the fossil record contains fossil thorns—claimed by evolutionists to be hundreds of millions of years old. How could that be if thorns came after Adam’s sin?

The fossil record also contains lots of examples of animals that ate other animals—bones in their stomachs, teeth marks on bones, and so on. But according to the Bible, animals were vegetarian before sin.

Also, the fossil record contains examples of diseases, such as brain tumors, cancer, and arthritis. But if these existed before man, then God called such diseases “very good.”

Taking all this into consideration, it seems obvious that bloodshed, death of animals and man, disease, suffering, and thorns came after sin. So the fossil record had to be laid down after sin, too. Noah’s Flood would easily account for most fossils.

But what does this have to do with a gospel issue? The Bible calls death an “enemy” (1 Corinthians 15:26). When God clothed Adam and Eve with coats of skins (Genesis 3:21), a good case can be made that this was the first death—the death and bloodshed of an animal. Elsewhere in Scripture we learn that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22), and the life of the flesh is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11). Because Adam sinned, a payment for sin was needed. Because sin’s penalty was death, then death and bloodshed were needed to atone for sin. So Genesis 3:21 would describe the first blood sacrifice as a penalty for sin—looking forward to the one who would die “once for all” (Hebrews 10:10–14).

The Israelites sacrificed animals over and over again, as a ceremonial covering for sin. But Hebrews 10:4 tells us that the blood of bulls and goats can’t take away our sin—we are not physically related to animals. We needed a perfect human sacrifice. So all this animal sacrifice was looking forward to the one called the Messiah (Jesus Christ).

Now if there was death and bloodshed of animals before sin, then this undermines the atonement. Also, if there were death, disease, bloodshed, and suffering before sin, then such would be God’s fault—not our fault! Why would God require death as a sacrifice for sin if He were the one responsible for death and bloodshed, having created the world with these bad things in place?

One of today’s most-asked questions is how Christians can believe in a loving God with so much death and suffering in the world. The correct answer is that God’s just Curse because of Adam’s sin resulted in this death and suffering. We are to blame. God is not an unloving or incompetent Creator of a “very bad” world. He had a loving plan from eternity to rescue people from sin and its consequence of eternal separation from God in hell.

So to believe in millions of years is a gospel issue. This belief ultimately impugns the character of the Creator and Savior and undermines the foundation of the soul-saving gospel.

An Indirect Salvation Issue
Many Christians believe in millions of years and are truly born again. Their belief in millions of years doesn’t affect their salvation. But what does it do? It affects how other people, such as their children or others they teach, view Scripture.

Their example can be a stumbling block to others. For instance, telling young people they can reinterpret Genesis to fit in millions of years sets a deadly example: they can start outside Scripture and add ideas into Scripture.

I suggest that such people can, over time, get the idea that the Bible is not God’s infallible Word. This creates doubt in God’s Word—and doubt often leads to unbelief. Eventually they can reject Scripture altogether. Since the gospel comes from a book they don’t trust or believe is true, they can easily reject the gospel itself.

So, the age of the earth and universe is not a salvation issue per se—somebody can be saved even without believing what the Bible says on this issue. But it is a salvation issue indirectly. Christians who compromise on millions of years can encourage others toward unbelief concerning God’s Word and the gospel.​