Do Christians have to believe that God created the world in six days? (Ep. 21)

Do Christians have to believe that God created the world in six days? Does a Christian have to believe that these days were 24-hour-long days? Join Pastors Chris and Tony as they explore the biblical teaching of Creation.

In this episode, the pastors will show how all of the Scriptures testify to the important truth that God created the heavens and the earth.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Are there fundamental doctrines that a Christian must believe? Like, are there things that you go through the Bible and say, this a Christian must believe, or this a Christian doesn't have to believe? Or should we have a different approach altogether? Or should we rather understand the teachings of Scripture as one unit and say, accept all of it and don't decide whether or not certain things can be tossed out or ignored? This is the typical approach of our church body, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, that we wouldn't hold to what's called fundamental doctrines. Sure, we would acknowledge that there are certain things that you must believe in order to be saved, but we're going to approach God's word and say this is something we want to accept all of it and not make this uh clean distinction of this you must believe and this you don't have to believe. Because at the end of the day, every false teaching could become a salvation issue. And and so our dogmaticians historically, um, the ones that we we use, their textbooks, the the Heinekies, the Papers, I think they might even use that term, but it has long been understood that um we don't mean it in the sense that everything else is indifferent. Um uh all doctrine is practical, all doctrine connects to that chief article of justification and it matters. And an area of denial of scripture is an area of unbelief and ultimately an area of idolatry. Um, you're choosing your ways, your mind, your thoughts over God's ways. We want to uphold all of Scripture. Yeah, so we might talk about it as saying uh if you don't understand the depths of the doctrine of fellowship, that doesn't mean you're going to hell. Whereas if you reject the Trinity, the Athanasian Creed is pretty clear on that one. Uh so we recognize that there may be use to that term fundamental, but there's also danger to it. Yeah. Today we're gonna talk about a teaching that may seem non-fundamental to some, and that's regarding creation. Uh and we're we're gonna explore that question of uh does a Christian need to believe God created the heavens and the earth? Does a Christian need to believe that it was in six days? Does a Christian need to believe that those days were 24 hours long? And the interesting thing is if you talk about like American history, I think creation was one of those fundamentalist doctrines, but in the current discourse, what you see is a lot of people pushing it as a secondary, tertiary issue and saying, you don't really need to believe this, and pushing it so far that they don't even want to talk about it because they don't want to alienate someone from the church. And so I think this is something we started thinking about because uh we've seen rhetoric online, we've heard people kind of acting like holding to creation, holding to six days, holding to natural days, 24-hour days is non-essential. And I think we want to make the case today to say, no, this is really important. Yeah. So the question we're addressing is uh does a Christian need to believe in the creation narrative and understand this in a literal sense? Uh our answer is going to be yes. No, we're not saying that if you don't believe it, you're not going to heaven, but we're going to make a case for why this is a very important teaching from scripture. My name is Chris Flugheft. I'm the pastor at Grace Lutheran Church, joined by my brother Tony Flugeft, pastor at Christ Divine Lutheran Church. We serve as Lutheran pastors in Southern California. And this is Double Portion, a podcast in which we explore the intersection of Christian teaching and Christian living. I think as we look think about the whole creation narrative, you really go from Genesis chapter 1.1 to 24A as you talk about it. And then chapter two takes you into a different angle as you're looking at that specific creation uh account. So I want to share with you, I was flipping through social media, and there was a short that was advertising a podcast, and that these two young women were talking about creation, actually, taking on the same topic. And one of them says to the other, I always read the creation account as kind of like an epic of Gilgamesh type thing. It just seems like it's not meant to be literal. How should we approach Genesis chapter one? Do we listen to those voices, like that young lady on her podcast saying, Well, it's kind of like the epic of Gilgamesh, it explains why things are the way it is, but it's not intended to be read literally. Yeah. Uh if you read through the Genesis account, it reads like a historical narrative. It's in the book of Genesis, which is filled with historical narratives. And so we want to be honest, the genre. Um, it is different than the portions of um Ezekiel or something that that show kind of that apocalyptic type literature. It's different than Hebrew poetry, it is very clearly not Hebrew poetry. So often uh what people will say is they'll say it's poetic, but as you read Genesis 1 and 2, it is not Hebrew poetry. So, how do you read it? Well, this gets into a kind of our hermeneutic approach. Uh, how do you read and understand scripture? Uh, we read as the message was intended to be given. This is one of the great errors of our day is that we've given into this idea that I'm allowed to interpret something the way I want to understand something. This is the way that it seems to me, and my opinion's my opinion, your opinion's your opinion, but not all opinions are equally valid. Um, there was someone who gave this message, God working through Moses to give us this message. It reminds me of this meme I see online where there's like an M drawn on the floor, and I'm looking at it, and I say, Look, it's an M. And you're looking at it, you say, Look, it's a W and it says C there, they're both right. The issue with that is someone wrote that M or W on the ground. And it's our job to find out what is the intended message there. Was that an M or a W? It it can't be that we're both right. It's not just a matter of perspective. And so this is how language works. We receive a message. If you send me a text message, I'm not allowed to just take it in any direction I see fit. And so as we look at Genesis and we read through this, this is Hebrew narrative. And so we understand narrative as it is intended to be understood as a literal account of what happened. Yeah, and I think that's where the downfall was for this young lady in her podcast clip, because she was saying, it reads to me like. And what you're pointing out is the major flaw there is meaning is not in the mind of the perceiver, meaning's in the mind of the communicator. Yeah. So we need to get at what it doesn't matter what it reads to you like, but instead the person who wrote this, what was this person intending to do? And what a dangerous game that is to play as you read throughout the scriptures and say, does this read to me like uh a mythological narrative, like an epic of Gilgamesh? There's a lot of things in the scriptures that you could say this doesn't sound real. Yeah. And then use that same line of logic to dismiss it. Yeah. I mean, there's so many things uh in in the scriptures that if you if you are going to operate based off of your perception of how reality ought to work, you're gonna have to deny virgin birth, resurrection of the dead, our few coming resurrection, um, all of the supernatural events, Jesus, miracles. Uh so if you're basing it on on how you think things should work, well, then you're gonna have to deny all of it. And I I'll tell people when I'm teaching a new member class and we go through this account, um, and I do this right away. Uh I I talk about this in the first lesson because I I think that it is a foundational truth. I I don't think it's secondary or tertiary. I think uh the way you approach Genesis, the way you approach uh creation really impacts how you approach everything in scripture. And I'll tell people the very first words say, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and it goes on to give that account. If you're going to take out the carving knife and cut out everything that does not mesh with the way that you see this world, that is a very dangerous game to play with scripture. Uh, you're gonna keep pulling on that thread when do you stop? And I think it's helpful, and you're pointing out in the beginning, so it's probably been a little bit since uh we've thought about the Toledotes of Genesis, and maybe that's not even a term that many are familiar with, but Genesis is structured into these different uh almost chapters as they look at the separate history narratives as you uh you go through this funnel from all of creation into this one family. Uh so as we look at the structure of this book, it's starting with a history of the heavens and the earth, and then it's gonna move into the history of Abraham and his family. So uh we're we're going through this history narrative. Uh, one thing I want to grab on from what you said before is about this doesn't read as Hebrew poetry. So uh I'm getting this from Andrew Steinman, who is a uh LCMS professor. I think he's at the St. Louis seminary for them. And Andrew Steinman, he talks about the characteristics of Hebrew poetry. So Hebrew poetry is not exactly like English poetry where we follow rhyme and meter, but instead Hebrew poetry follows uh not necessarily rhyme, but word sound. And parallelism. And then parallelism is a big thing. So if you see one word and then you see a synonym in the next line, uh you're going to say, hey, we're in Hebrew poetry right now. It seems that the Psalms are probably the classic example. Sometimes the Psalms are even structured differently, and you will have uh alphabetical uh acrostic poems, and they have the structure of uh of being a poem. And as we look into Genesis, uh what what we're not reading is something with that structure. Uh so it someone might say, Oh, it sounds po poetical to me. Well, then the issue isn't necessarily because you're seeing a poem, but it might be because you just find the content to be unbelievable. Yeah. I I wanted to highlight that um what what it looks like with that parallelism. And I remembered I was doing a Bible study on Isaiah, and Isaiah has has poetry, and the helpful thing is in often in translations, they'll set off the poetry um so that it looks different. And I think that's helpful um as you're reading. Um, and and you see the like in the NIV, they don't do that in Genesis 1 because it's it's not Hebrew poetry. Um, but it helps say, okay, this is this is poetic. Isaiah chapter 65, verses 17 and falling is talking about the new heavens and the new earth. And and so it's a see, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind. So that's an example right there. They will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind. You have that parallelism, and so this helps you understand this is poetry, and it's talking about the new heavens and the new earth. And that's a cue to understand that to understand this literally, we don't take it literalistically, and so when it talks about Jerusalem, it's not talking about the physical city of Jerusalem, it's talking about this uh heavenly Jerusalem. And so, in order to understand that properly, we want to see is this poetic or not? And so, um, like you're saying with Genesis, it it is different, it doesn't have those marks of Hebrew poetry. Yeah, and then uh once we understand the genre of literature, that Genesis here in chapter one, we're looking at a historical narrative. It's helpful for us to think about uh how words are used in that genre of literature. Uh so uh I think the word Yom, which is the day word for day, that we we uh have here, it can be helpful to think about this. And again, I'm stealing this from Andrew Steinman. It sounds like he and our read lessing have a new book out that it talks about uh challenging Old Testament text. I'm interested in checking that book uh out. But he talks about the how there are kind of three different uses of the word day, even when you talk about a his historical narrative. Yeah. So then he'll say, back in the day, uh it took this person 63 days uh to uh drive across the country and they drove during the day.

SPEAKER_01 14:47

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 14:47

So then it's like, okay, back in the day is kind of like this broader understanding in indeterminate amount of time, it it happened at that time. And then you have the the 63 days, which says the specific amount of time that it took, and then that one would clearly be 24-hour days. Yeah. And then he said, and they drove during the day, and that's talking about like daytime, nighttime. Those three uses are actually found in Genesis chapter one and two to four A. So then if you're thinking of uh the indeterminate amount of time day, that that's actually found at the end of in chapter two, uh verse four A, where it's not represented in the NIV, but it is represented in the EHV, uh, where it says this is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, and that when should it it has the Hebrew word Yom in the day that they were created. So even the translators of the NIV are like, okay, we understand that this isn't talking about a literal day here, but this is in the day and the period in determining context clues, which we'll get into that that's not day, because in the day that it was created. Well, we know from the context that it wasn't one day. And then you also see another use of day, uh, which it happens on the first day when God created the heavens or created light, uh, and it says God saw that the light was good and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day. So drove during the day, like that story that he uses apparently in his book. Uh, but we have that second use of day. So this is just talking about the daytime. The most prominent use of the word day, though, is marked off by the first day, the second day, the third day, and it's even described in the text as evening morning. Yeah. And so then the natural way to understand that is that this is a literal day. And and Andrew Simon he he goes on to say, well, for shorthand, we say 24 hour days. We know there's leap years, so okay, 23.99 hour days. But those are 24 hour days, which is the natural way to understand it. Yeah. And and so there's like you said, there's context clues in the way to understand the word day here because of the words evening and morning, and because of the numeration, first, second, third day. It makes it helps you understand this isn't an age in that day. Um, this is a literal, naturally occurring day. And so that's how we are to understand the creation account. Seven literal days. God created first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth day, seventh day, he rested. And then some people get a little confused because of Genesis chapter two, and the understanding of Genesis chapter two is kind of that zooming in on the day that humans were created. And so as we look at this um and and read through Genesis, the natural reading, the intended understanding is that God created the heavens and the earth in six twenty-four-hour days. And so uh some will object and they'll say, well, uh day is like a thousand years in the eyes of the Lord, and a thousand years like the day. Well, you're pull you're pulling an understanding of the word day from a poetic section of scripture, from poetry, and applying that to the section. And that's where we need to talk about how words have meaning. Words have meaning in context. I can't just pull a meaning from a different spot and apply it and say that's what it means here, because we just talked through that whole context. Just because it did in poetry doesn't mean here in this narrative, it means um some long span of time. We just talked through that. So the honest reading of the text will lead an individual to say that God created the heavens and the earth in 624. Yeah. So as we read through Genesis, we're gonna say that this that's the honest reading of the text, is this these are six normal days. Uh, and I think there's other reasons to be led there as well uh throughout scripture. Uh one of them is theological, and the other is maybe Christological. Uh but I I want to bring you to Matthew chapter 19 as we think about uh those who uh approach Jesus with the object of divorce. And and they have said, hey, Moses uh commanded that a man give a wife a certificate of divorce and send her away. And and Jesus talks about how divorce is permitted because of the hardness of their hearts. And Jesus points back uh to the the beginning in this conversation with them. Jesus said to them, Haven't you read, that's in verse 4 of Matthew 19, he replied, that at the beginning the creator made them male and female and said, For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So Jesus is forming his argument against divorce based off of this creation narrative here in Genesis 1 through 3 and saying, This is what happened. And it's important that we recognize that Jesus Christ, who is the very Son of God, taken flesh, perfect and holy, not cap not lying, not not sinning, uh, but instead uh the one who proclaims in truth and purity God's word, and then also went to the cross and died for our sins and rose from the grave triumphantly, proving that he is God. Jesus is the one upholding this as truth. Uh so then, as those who are saved by Jesus and look to Jesus, it would be proper for us to take Jesus' perspective on Genesis one through three. Yeah, so Jesus' understanding of Genesis 1 and 1 through 3 is that this is a literal account of what has happened. Um, we see that the idea of God creating the heavens and the earth is woven throughout the scriptures. It's just something you can't get around. Uh, we see one of the instances of giving the giving of the Ten Commandments, the basis for the resting on the Sabbath is that God rested when he created the heavens and the earth. We see it in Romans chapter one that this is really um why people are without excuse, uh why God is still just and and um in punishing for their their denial of him. And it says in Romans chapter one, verses 18 and following the The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities, his eternal power, and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. So God has made it plain through the giving of creation. Those who deny the creator are suppressing what God has made plain. God has shown his power, his invisible qualities through this creation. So we see again it's woven throughout scripture. We see it here in Romans chapter one. We see it elsewhere as well. One of the sections I was thinking of is when often the sections that talk about the roles of men and women appeal to the orders of creation, appeal to God creating Adam first and then Eve. And so it is all of these things are are connected. And so that's where when people try to deny creation or subtly deny it, and I think we'll get into that in a little bit, they're really not just attacking Genesis chapters one through three, they're attacking words throughout the scriptures. Yeah, and there there's some faith traditions out there that will try to separate uh kind of their their Christian understanding of things from their scientific understanding of things. And they'll say, like, well, uh I believe in that as a spiritual truth, but not a scientific literal truth. And uh there we would urge very much caution because God's word uh it dictates all of our life. It's not just like, well, that's my religion over there, and here's my true understanding of things over here. Although the Bible is not a science textbook, it makes truth claims uh towards scientific truths. So as you're approaching these things, this is the God of the universe saying, This is how I did it. And we want to listen to him. Yeah. Yeah, and and so another place I wanted to point to in this conversation is is Hebrews chapter 11, where it says, uh, by faith we understand that the world was created at God's command. And so ultimately, this is an article of of faith. And and so there is limitations in trying to prove these things scientifically, although I do think there's value in doing that. But at the end of the day, we believe what we have not seen. And Jesus says, Blessed are those who have not believed, who have not seen yet yet believe. He says that to doubting Thomas. And so as I take the words of scripture literally, I truly believe this is what happened. Now, if someone from a different faith tradition, a different uh branch of Christianity wants to say, um, uh like well, I don't understand it that way. I I maybe they hold to some sort of Wesleyan quadrilateral, or like the Roman Catholic, like, like the bar stool of faith tradition and and and human reason or and faith tradition and um not not human reason, why am I blanking? Doesn't matter. Um if they have a different approach to it, like okay, that is what it is, but we don't agree then. And it's fine to say, yeah, you're reading scripture different than we are. Um, and I think you're wrong. Um, let's be honest to what this actually says. But when we're talking about someone who goes to one of our Lutheran churches, um, or even someone who's in the realm of confessional Lutheranism who says they believe many of these things, that's where it does become very important, saying, well, there are a whole whole host of issues if you deny the creation account. It can't just be something that we say is secondary or tertiary and isn't a big deal because it it's so prevalent throughout scripture. Yeah. And uh this is where uh I'm going to sing the praises of our church body, uh uh more so that sing the praises of our God who has shown us such grace. Uh, I don't think I know a single Wells pastor who doesn't believe in the six-day 24-hour creation narrative. And that's that's wonderful. We're so thankful by God's grace that we have been held uh held to the truth here. Um but the unfortunate thing is go on to Reddit uh chains, go to YouTube comments, and you will see all sorts of people claiming to be Lutherans. Now, who knows? Maybe they're just a fake account and they're just making stuff up. People claiming to be Lutherans that say they do not believe in the creation narrative, or they'll say, My pastor at this church uh doesn't uh believe in it. None of them are claiming to go to Wells Churches from my perspective. This seems to be something our church body has remained very strong on. But it it is troubling to see people who uh hold to uh so many of the important truths of scripture, but then say, well, this one doesn't matter. And I I think this is an area where we could be tempted to give up. You do hear things of people kind of saying, Well, it's not essential for them to believe. They can still go to heaven, and and kind of this gospel reductionism that I do see prevalent within our circles of this idea of the only thing that matters is narrowly speaking the gospel. And if if it doesn't relate to narrowly speaking the gospel, then we can kind of not emphasize it, not talk about it. And and I think that's something we could be guilty of, kind of that functional false teaching, where it just doesn't get talked about because it's not specifically addressing that narrow focus of Jesus Christ dying on the cross. And so it is really um important for us to to teach this well and make sure that we uh we let our people know that this is what the scriptures profess. And and I I think maybe this would be a time for us to kind of talk about why there are some major issues beyond just the fact that this is woven throughout scripture, but if some other major issues about denying the creation account that that come up. I don't know if there's something else you wanted to talk about. Well, I what you're getting into is where we were at the beginning of saying uh this is what the trouble of saying, are there fundamental doctrines? Uh because when you make that distinction, you can inadvertently communicate that uh non-fundamental means unimportant. Yeah. But it's like pulling on the thread of that sweater that you're gonna start to unravel, you're gonna start to pull it apart. Uh, because is creation strictly speaking about the gospel? No, but yes. If a person uh does not believe that God created the world in six, twenty-four hour days, can they still go to heaven? Yes, it seems that there would be happy inconsistencies. However, what we need to do is air some caution on this, and this is getting into what you are saying, you wanted to bring us into here is there are gonna be some fundamental issues that you start to have to wrestle with if you deny the Genesis account. Um and and we're gonna talk about sin, we're gonna talk about death, yeah, we're gonna talk about the promise of a savior, yeah, and all of these things couched in this beginning of scriptures. So you talk about one of the issues being like the the knowledge of Christ, uh what he knew on earth, if uh this would to deny the creation account would put Christ in error in Matthew chapter 19. But also consider John chapter 1 and what John proclaims of Christ. Um, this is the identity of our Savior, he is the creator. John chapter 1, in the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made. Without him, nothing was made that has been made. And and John, first John chapter 1 starts with similar thoughts. Jesus is our creator of God as well. And so often when we think of the Trinity, we ascribe certain actions to certain person, one of the persons of the Trinity. Um, when we think creation and preservation, we typically think God the Father. But John chapter one talks about Jesus being the creator of the world. This is his identity. And so if you're gonna deny creation, um that really gets in the way of something like John chapter one. Now, we I think we just need to um maybe we're begging the question on something. Uh we do need to establish what people are arguing first. Because I think someone might say, well, I'm I'm not saying that God didn't create. And they they try to come up with like a merged theistic evolution of of God uh creating through an evolutionary process, um, God using ages, eons to create. Um, but the issue with that is that's not the creation account that our creator has given. And so that's where you would then introduce um errors into the Genesis 1 account, or or at least um inconsistencies that we'll talk about in a moment, like the fall into sin that don't mesh with that idea of a theistic evolution, that God kind of banged the Big Bang and started the evolutionary process in that way. Uh, but then also um there's really doubt about him really being that creator he says he is, and that's where we're saying, okay, well, you get into these other issues, like Jesus is the creator of the universe, and and if John 1 says he through him all things were made, and and we're denying that that Genesis 1, or at least um manipulating the Genesis 1 account to say something it doesn't actually say, that then introduces doubt into John 1. Yeah, and uh you talked about theistic evolution and getting back into Genesis chapter one. Uh sometimes there's a little bit of question uh where do people put the gap when they have a gap theory? It seems like one of the bigger arguments is placing in between verse one and verse two to say, like, well, in the beginning God created, and then there's just a lot missing, uh tons and tons of time uh in in which this evolutionary process began, or or even before that the Big Bang and everything began, and then you start to pick up. So we have the beginning consists of millions of years, yeah. And then we get into this creation narrative. And obviously, then you would say, Well, if scriptures are sufficient, why didn't God share that information with us? And well, if your argument is that, well, Moses was a simple man who didn't understand these things, then okay, well, we have some serious questions to ask about why trust what he has written. Yeah. Uh if he's just a simple man of his time. There's and there's also other issues about God sharing things with biblical writers who didn't understand what he was saying at the time, like the prop prophecies. Like they didn't always understand what the prophecies really meant. God is not limited to the um immediate understanding of the person either. But I I don't think, like, even at that, Moses was not a simple man who didn't understand things. So then I think where we start to have the rubber uh uh meet the road and and kind of this tension that we have with a theistic evolution and how that can uh match with Genesis chapter one is going to be uh very seriously death. Yeah. So evolutionary theory requires death, and then it would require death prior to the fall into sin. In order for things to build up uh and to bring us to Adam and Eve, even and many of them don't take Adam and Eve as literal people, you would need death happening uh before these people are are in place. But what does Romans 6 say? The wages of sin is death. And God looked at the world and said, uh, it is good, it is good, it is good, and then creates humanity. It is very good. So if you have death as a process through which uh these people are coming forward, and death is a consequence of sin, uh then you're you really have to ask seriously, why is God saying this is good and saying it's very good if it if it wasn't, if there was death prior to. Yeah. And and so one point that I I maybe will add is I I have heard the case that um the Genesis perfect world, Garden of Eden does allow for maybe some sense of what we would call like I think it was molecular death, because like when you eat food, there's whatever molecules that are consumed. But but that we're gonna we're gonna say like biblically speaking that like that's different. Um like eating food is is different than um a living, breathing being, an animal, human dying. We also see that like um decay and all of these things are part of that corruption of the world. And so um death as we understand death, um living being um dying is not permittable in the Garden of Eden because death is a result of sin. So yeah, if we have death before sin, then that's a major issue in your interpretation and understanding of the scriptures. And that's going to be a major reason why you're gonna say we we can't hold on to this. Uh, I think another reason is is tying it back to Jesus, as we always should. Uh, but the first promise of a savior, the first promise uh God's response to this fall into sin and this problem of death is given in Genesis chapter 3, verse 15. Uh so uh, although someone might read Genesis 3 and say, oh, this sounds like an epic of Gilgamesh type thing, you have a talking snake. Uh, the the beginning, the first promise of a savior is made there as God speaks a curse upon the snake, which is really Satan masquerading himself, and but then it's actually a promise of salvation for the people who had fallen into sin. So major issue with a theistic evolution denying the creation account is that idea of the fall into sin, which is so foundational in our understanding of scripture, who our savior is and what he would do. He has the problem to sin, um, uh he has the answer to the problem of sin, thinking Romans 5 type thoughts, death came through that first Adam, but life through through the the new Adam, our Lord Jesus Christ. And and so uh it just you can't mesh these two. And so then some will even try to deny a young earth understanding of the world, biblically speaking. But if we again, if we understand what the scriptures are actually saying, we we can kind of see it's it's a fool's errand to try to mesh these two ideas. Like, what are you accomplishing by saying that it's not six, twenty-four-hour days? What are you what are you accomplishing by trying to add time? And so uh we see like the genealogies, um the genealogy in Luke's gospel uh goes from Joseph, Jesus' earthly father, to Adam. And it goes and it lists these people. And now I will concede um there are gaps in the genealogies and and the word for son of can mean like the grandson of. Uh, but the gaps cannot make up for a substantial amount of time. Yeah, so we we don't have to uh use Usher's chronology and say that God created uh the world in 404 BC and then say, well, now that means that the world is two thousand uh six thousand and but uh thirty years. But I don't think you can insert I you can't insert beyond like 10,000 years, like getting it up to 10,000 years. So then what are you accomplishing? Uh like to to the person who says the world's billions of years old, and you say, well, it's like I don't believe in that whole young earth, six thousand-year-old earth. Then it's like, okay, what do you believe? 10,000? That's still a young earth. Like, what what are you looking to accomplish? Because if you're trying to mesh with the biblical record, you can't you can't do anything differently. And and so again, this really comes down to how we read scripture, which is another major issue that this problem presents. Do we believe that all scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness? Do we believe in verbal inspiration? Do we believe that God cannot lie? Or do we think there are errors in the scriptures? Because if you think there are errors in the scriptures, then then we're talking past each other. And so this is why I enjoy taking this early on in my new member class because I think that there are foundational issues about how you approach scripture. Do we believe what God's word says or not? Are we willing to subject human reason to God's word, or do we think that we stand above it and we get to cut out the parts that we don't like? And I think that's an important question of what is the role of the human reasoning, the uh the human mind? Uh do we approach scripture and hold ourselves over it and say, well, the things that I don't get, the things that I don't understand, I can edit, uh, I can change, or do we hold the scriptures above ourselves and submit to God when we do not understand these things and recognize God is higher than us? It's like uh the example from Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis talks about when we look at God and say, you don't make any sense. It's like a uh painting looking at the painter and saying, You're 3D, you don't make any sense. Well, we should recognize is God is higher than we are and we submit to his truth, not uh try to force God's word to submit to our faulty human understanding. So I think another foundational Christian approach issue that comes up with a denial of the creation account is a failure to understand what we hear in 1 Corinthians chapter one, where it says, For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. Do we accept that God knows more than us? And Isaiah talks about his ways are higher than our ways, his thoughts are higher than our thoughts. That's Isaiah 55, I believe. Um, do we accept that God knows better than us, that we are nothing compared to him, or do we think that we know more, that we are we are better, that we can somehow tell the God of the universe who was there at the creation of the world that we know better than him as to what happened? Um then that maybe reminds you of what God did with Job.

SPEAKER_01 42:57

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 42:57

Walking all the were you there? Were you there? Were you there? And and it's so it's an arrogant approach to God. And so that's why to me, it like again, it's not just a secondary issue that we can give up on. There are major approaches to God and to scripture issues, and and so I think one of the issues that I perceive when it's um people well-meaning who are saying, you know, uh they just don't want to make it a a a dying on the hill issue or whatever it might be, is trying to be friends with the world. They're trying to be friends with people um that that just do not believe in God, do not respect what God's word has to say, are are antithetical to scripture and they're trying to to make God's word palatable to them. But then it again it's just the issue of this is not going to mesh with human wisdom. Mm-hmm. And We we don't want to create stumbling blocks for people, right? But what we don't want to do is to act like the truth of scripture is a stumbling block to people that can be removed. It can be a stumbling block. Christ can be a stumbling block. This cross is a scandal, but these are not things to remove and therefore say, well, if this is offensive to you, then I'm going to stop proclaiming the cross. Well, if this is offensive to you, I'm going to stop proclaiming the creation narrative. But instead hold out God's word and say, this is true, and then put our trust in the Holy Spirit to say, Yeah, you are capable of working faith in this person's heart so that they can by faith believe that the heavens and earth were created by God. And so there's another perhaps foundational approach issue. How does God work? Does God need me to make the word palatable and acceptable to a human? Or is God's word powerful and effective? Does God's word work? Will the word that he has sent out accomplish its purpose like the rain that falls from the heaven? Um does faith come from hearing the message, or or do I think that I need to play, play God and and manipulate the scriptures so that someone can accept it? Well, there's also then another issue. Uh what is my expectation for this world? Um, do I accept, do I believe kind of that the theology of glory that everything's gonna be good all the time for us as Christians? Or do I accept the cross and take up the cross and say, you know, we might be ridiculed and and scorned by the world because of our views being viewed as as fools? Well, I want to be a fool for Christ. I think it's helpful for us to argue not only that uh this is true, but also to show uh what it means that it is true for our lives. Because there are foundational identity statements that come from uh this account. So we talked about this in our last conversation as we talked about environmentalism, but we have the special identity of humanity comes in this creation account. As on the sixth day, God created humans. And verse 27 in chapter one says, um, so God created mankind in his own image. In the image of God, he created the male and female, he created them. So we have this special position of humans, that the animals weren't created in God's image, humans were created in God's image. Then we can talk more about what that means to be created in God's image. Yes, it's true that uh it was marred by sin and it's uh it's re-recreated in us through faith in Christ Jesus. But there are other aspects as well historically that people speak about the image of God, and it still means something afterwards because in Genesis it talks about how uh murder is wrong because humans are created in God's image. But then also uh to confront current day issues with the uh gender and sexuality and the roles of men and women, God created mankind, he created them in his image, male and female, he created them. So as we approach this world, which has all sorts of confusion about what is biological sex, what is gender? Uh it seems that gender is very much kind of a personality trait mindset to many people, but then God points back and points to these two sexes, male and female, and that is how he created them. And elsewhere in scripture it points back to the order of creation, and we can talk about that more. Do you have a thought here on first John? Yeah, I was gonna save that actually. I just want I was I'm writing a Bible study on First John, and I thought it pertained to the conversation, but I wanted before I forgot that I wanted to just open that up. But I I wanted to kind of talk to your idea about being created in the image of God. And and so we have a clear and natural argument for human rights in a way that people who do not believe in a creator cannot have. Why is that person valuable? Because they were created in the image of God. There's no argument about it. And so this is a very major issue that comes up. If there is no creator, where does morality come from? Where does value come from? What's our purpose in this life? And and if there is no creator, um, it's kind of we're all left our own um devices to figure out purpose, morality, and and it is to each their own. And so your only priority in this life really should be like I guess procreation, survival, uh yeah, procreation and survival are really your only concerns. And so I don't have to care about that other person in a strictly materialistic worldview. But when there's a creator who has endowed each of his creation, each member of his creation with value, that fundamentally changes the approach to that individual. And so this is a very beautiful argument against abortion. This is a very beautiful argument against euthanasia. This is a very beautiful argument about the value of the individual's disabilities. They are valuable because they have been created in the image of God. And so um I was reminded there was some Scandinavian country that had uh kind of boasted that they had kind of done away with Down syndrome. Well, the reality is they're aborting babies with Down syndrome, and and that's a that's a human rights issue. That is awful. It's murder, uh, it's eugenics. Like this is really terrible what they're doing. And there, thankfully, there were even people who aren't Christians who are seeing this as an issue. Um the abortion conversation often comes to and really a utilitarian view of ethics. And so, what is the utility of the person and that is their value? And so the the person who is um has disabilities, um, they'll they'll kind of almost talk about like they wouldn't say it in these exact terms, but almost as the person being like an almost a net negative on society, or that baby who's born in an uh who would be born in a negative situation uh is a complication upon the mother, and then maybe would be a complication on society. And so it's really a utilitarian view of ethics. What does this individual bring to the table? If they're a net negative, then it is better for the whole to get rid of them, is essentially the heart of the argument that's being made. Because the person who's pro-abortion that is honest about it will eventually admit that they they understand this is life, but it's a utilitarian view of ethics conversation. But when I say no, that person has value just because they're a human, that helps me to advocate for that unborn baby, um, the the individual with the unborn baby with special needs, and then at end-of-life issues as well. Because the conversation about the person who's being euthanized is like, well, um they can't do anything. They are like they again, they might not say it this way, but they're a drain on society, on other people's money. Um, I I really do think these are underlying issues. But now, as one as I understand there's a creator, I see all people have value, and I will fight for the rights of those individuals because they have um that that image of God that's been given to them. Yeah, so my wife had a baby about a week and a half ago, and as we hold this little baby who is completely incapable of doing anything for herself, uh, what we can do is we can look at her and say she has value uh in that God created her. And then we can add on the baptismal identity, she's been baptized as a child of God, and that that uh um renews the image of God within her, uh that uh as she's clothed in Christ's righteousness. Um but then we also tie these things to to sin and and death as well, and say, as we look at the Genesis narrative of creation and the fall into sin, uh there's an uh another layer to the importance of human life because of the eternal soul and the resurrection of the dead and those who are resurrected and go to eternal life in the new creation, those who go to eternal damnation in hell, that we look at this aborted baby and say, This is a uh a human with a soul, and and or we look at this. Uh I heard the story about this 56-year-old mom who was so distraught that her son died, then she uh she went through medical assistance and dying. Uh, but say, like you just committed a very grievous sin that shows a distrust in God, and you you're putting yourself into danger for eternity by making such a decision that doesn't recognize these core truths that go back to Genesis 1 through 3. And maybe here's a way to spin that idea of eternity even in a more positive direction. The one who created the heavens and the earth promises to recreate. Um, Isaiah 65 thoughts that I brought up before that promise of the new heavens and the earth. Revelation 21 thoughts that promise the new heavens and the earth. And so the the creator of the universe is creating something new for us where we will dwell for all eternity. And so, again, these things are woven in throughout scripture. I brought up this first John section because I was working through this and and John calls us to Christian living, and and he talks about his reasons for writing, and he gives them this call for not not walking in the darkness, but walking in the light, and he says, I'm writing to you, dear children, because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name. I'm writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you've overcome the evil one. I'm writing to you, dear children, because you know the father. I'm writing to I write to you, fathers, because you know who him who is from the beginning. And there's this emphasis about God being from the beginning. Uh, you have confidence because your God is the creator of the universe. You have confidence because the creator of the universe, our Lord Jesus Christ, took on flesh, suffered, and died. And so Acts chapter 20, verse 28 talks about the church being the one that God bought with his own blood. It says, God bought it with his own blood. The one who died on the cross for the sins of the world is our creator, our Lord Jesus Christ. And we can get into like kind of the um communication attributes and how this um works, but uh, we have historically been comfortable saying God died on the cross. Um, he participates in the death in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ. We don't separate him, he is God and man in all that he does. And so just think of the profundity of that. Our creator, the creator of the universe, died for you. Yeah, that's amazing. Yeah, it makes me think of uh Peter's uh Pentecost uh sermon, and it also makes me think about Paul in Athens, and they all they both go back to say talk about hey, you know, this creator God. Yeah, this is the one who saved you. And it also makes me think about the Old Testament uh dialogue with kind of the ancient Near Eastern thought.

SPEAKER_01 56:46

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 56:47

So the ancient Near Eastern thought, they kind of thought of uh their false gods like radio stations, and uh they you you leave one area and then you enter, and and 103.7 is no longer KISS FM, but it's the local sports uh radio station. And they thought, like, I go from the jurisdiction of one God into another. Oh, but the narrative of the Old Testament is the Lord Yahweh, the God of the uh the of the Hebrews, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, he is the God of the heavens and the earth. He is the God who's created everything. Uh so this very important argument is this isn't some fake low God, but this is the God who created everything. So I I guess maybe we should spend a little bit of time here at the end just addressing the idea of why someone might look to to downplay the creation account and and then just kind of give that one last encouragement, why we think this is that important. And and uh so we spent a lot of time talking about um this being woven in scripture, being foundational, influencing other doctrines, um, and and really having um identity meanings for us as Christians. Uh, but I guess I I want to talk a little bit about why people might look to downplay creation. And and I get it. I I do get it because there is this idea out there that uh if we want young people to go to the church, we need to just present what uh something that's not gonna cause them to stumble. And and so it's like, well, everyone just believes that science has proven um the the evolutionary process, and there's just no argument about it, and and why get into it again because um they can go to heaven if they just believe in Jesus anyways. Uh and so that's kind of the argument. And and so, like to an extent, I I understand where someone's coming from. Um, I think there's even a good heart behind it. They want people to believe in Jesus. Uh the pre certainly misguided, but they they just want people to believe in Jesus. But I think that one of the issues is we also need to not leave people in their error. So maybe you will tell someone at first, okay, let's set this aside for a moment and let's talk about Jesus and and let's talk about your problem of sin. Because they might be able to deny creation uh to an extent, but they're not gonna be able to deny the problem of sin. And so I can understand why someone might go somewhere else first. But this idea of saying, well, we'll just leave them there, that I mean, that's just heartless to leave someone in in an area of unbelief. Yeah, and I understand why people the good, sincere Christian who just wants people to know Jesus might fall into that. Sadly, many of those who deny the biblical account of creation or theistic evolution or for uh the Big Bang and different things like that, I think there's some more sinister um intentions behind it. Uh so pointing back to identity issues here, uh, if you follow very sincerely what is talked about in Genesis 1 through 3, you're gonna hold to uh what might be called conservative Christian values, right? Because God created family, God created marriage, God established the rules of men and women, uh, God gives the command to be fruitful and multiply. He gives you a job before the fall and gives you a job. So then there may be the temptation for people to want to not live a life that's in submission to how God has ordered the world and created these things. And I think that has a lot to do with why many will deny the creation account. Because if you deny the creation account, then uh all of these other things can be explained away. And it you then you don't have to deal with the fact that uh Paul makes the order of creation argument for the roles of men and women. If you deny the uh uh the uh creation account, you can kind of be free from God's structure for our lives and how He created us to be and interact with one another, how marriage is a good and wonderful thing, how work is a good thing. Uh so I think that has something to do with it as well. Yeah. I think that's really well said, and I think that's that's an excellent point because um I I think there are people who are biblically liberal who um don't like what the rest of scripture has to say. They just want to boil everything down to love is love. And my Facebook news feed has become over overcome with these things, uh, which is interesting. It's just all these random suggested posts, and it's a bunch of liberal Christians who uh deny everything that scripture says and and and say things like Jesus would be walking the woman to the abortion clinic, or Jesus would be like the the loudest trans rights advocate. And and so I think there is some sinister like we just we're gonna muddy the water about what scripture says so that we can say and teach and believe anything that we want. And ultimately behind this, we need to to understand and believe it is Satan working. Um that that's Satan's lie in the fall into sin, is uh twisting God's word. Did did God really say? And and and he continues to use that. And so there's Satan working through these people who are lying in the name of Jesus, trying to mislead them. And so there are some major issues. Um, I I don't know if you wanted to address this at all. I think we want to wrap up shortly here. Uh, but I I think we we've gone through an entire episode about creation and haven't talked about creation apologetics at all. Um, do you want to do we want to talk about that at all? Yeah, yeah. I think we can cover it quickly. Uh first, an aside, uh what I want to say is although Answers in Genesis is not perfect in everything they present, uh sometimes people can downplay creation science more than needs to be done. We understand that uh these arguments are not going to bring a person to saving faith. We understand that only the Holy Spirit can do that. But however, there are good and beneficial opportunities to show a person, hey, we've actually thought about this. Uh and then to also show our confirmants and our young people, hey, we've thought about this. Here's a potential response to these things. Um, I think some of the people who have pushed back to uh Ken Ham or an answers in Genesis are actually less familiar with what they're at, what they're putting out there. Um they have solid material out there that uh confesses uh the truth of God's word in connection to these things and provides here's a possibility for how these things could be uh could be talked about. Yeah. So I think the the Christian, the conservative Christian who's uncomfortable with the likes of a Ken Ham, uh I I do wonder if they're just parroting points. And sometimes it's this desire to to make friends with the scholars of the world. Um I've read multiple of uh a couple of Ken Ham's books. I've been to uh the Creation Museum, I I've been to the Ark Encounter a couple times. Um I have um watched some of his videos and presentations. I believe I I don't think I've saw Ken Ham in person, but I saw one of the speakers through Answers in Genesis in person. And I have a great respect for what they're doing. Um, I I think they're making a lot of legitimate scientific arguments. So I think there is value in um using creation apologetics to strike down the idolatry of scientism. There is this whole method of scientific study that is not scientific because they're making arguments about things um which they could not have used the scientific method for. You cannot recreate what you're saying happened billions of years ago, therefore, it is not observable, it is not testable. Is not falsifiable. It is not using the scientific method. And then there's a kind of a hubris and arrogance to it saying we know all of these things. And so in some ways, the the scientism of today is our our society's tower of Babel. And so I appreciate them knocking down that idolatry and saying, even some scientists understand that these arguments are not as queer-cut as people are trying to say. I think is is really well written. I think they make a lot of um sound, reasonable arguments to present the the legitimacy of the biblical account, the biblical record of creation. And so um it it really I I guess it it it upsets me that there are some Christians who again conservative Christians who just seem to speak against the creation apologetic effort. Like what what are they not our enemies? Yeah, and I think it gets back into this fundamental doctrine argument that we started with, where if if your presupposition is that creation is not a fundamental doctrine, then they say, well, just race to the cross, get them to the cross. Uh but it fails to recognize that there are people who uh they're not gonna believe uh a word the Bible says, humanly speaking, if they think you are just prop prosing something absolutely foolish. So there can be good help in it. So when it comes to creation apologetics, there's different avenues and there's different thoughts that can be really really helpful in this regard. And it's true in the scientific community there can always be debate and pushback, and the this isn't gonna be solid, thus saith the Lord stuff. So if you have a cosmological argument uh uh that points to the order of creation uh and just how everything works out well, yes, there will be uh pushback, but uh I don't think the solution to say, well, there's gonna be pushback to creation science is then to leave the dialogue altogether. Also, I think we have vastly overplayed in society the idea that like this is just something people can't can't believe. It's unbelievable. I have taught through our new member class I something like 25 times over the last four years. I don't think it has ever been an issue. Maybe one time we had like an extended conversation, but I have not, I don't think I've had a single time where where someone said like this, this is just I can't believe this. Um and and so I I think there's a there's a spiritual curiosity um in in people today, and many people today, and there's also an understanding that uh a world without God is foolish. I mean, psalm says that. And and so I also don't think we need to shy away from it because if you look, if you talk to people, I really don't think it's that big of an issue. So just say what you believe with your chest, and and this pastors, members alike. Um, if you believe something, just tell people what you believe. And and that reminds me of something like a video I saw where I thought there was a maybe someone who wasn't saying what he believed or was really trying with. If you believe something, say what you believe, like just be. Um, I I think uh there's an encouragement at the end of First Corinthians, like um, like be men, yeah, be a man. Show manly courage. Yeah, yeah, I think that's something that's really important. This is what God's word teaches and confesses, and that's what we want to teach and confess. So I think throughout this discussion, we've had the opportunity to point to the narrative, to point to other portions of scripture, and to say, uh, this is what God's word confesses, that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Uh, he created it in six twenty four-hour days, uh, that the world is uh maybe not 6,000 thirty years old if you follow Usher's chronology, but somewhere around that, yeah. Uh it's uh we're young earth creationists, and we can be comfortable with saying that this is what God's word teaches. Live in the confidence of the love of your creator. God bless.