Albert Mohler on a Young Earth: Why not just join the consensus?

Earlier this year, Dr. Al Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, took part in a friendly debate with Dr. Jack Collins of Covenant Theological Seminary regarding the age of the earth. In the following quotes (from about 30 minutes into the debate), Dr. Mohler gives his reasons for speaking against an 'old earth' understanding of the universe. I post these here because I think that these reasons are well-stated, and they represent my own view of the matter as well.

"Why not just join [the current consensus of 'settled science'] and affirm a universe that is billions of years old? Well, the answer is this:

"[1] I believe I am bound by Scripture as read by the Church for 1800 years and a view that is symphonically affirmed by Old Testament texts [even] outside of Genesis.

"[2] I believe that the embrace of an 'old earth' comes with theological and hermeneutical consequences that can have far-reaching effects (and potentially damaging, doctrinally harmful effects).

"In summary, I believe that an affirmation of an 'old earth' universe is:

"First, NOT most faithful as an act of biblical interpretation;

"Second, NOT most in keeping with the consensus fidelium;

"Third, NOT without potentially disastrous theological consequences;

"[Fourth], NOT required by the evidence (particularly, the biblical evidence)."

You can watch the entire video of the debate HERE.

Animal Death, the Fall, and the Age of the Earth

Introduction

Does the Bible speak definitively on the age of the earth? Some argue that the word for "days" in Genesis 1 can refer to long ages of time.  Whereas I'm convinced that the language used in Genesis 1 clearly depicts creation occurring in 6 days as we would normally understand "days" (with each day delimited by a 'evening and morning,' in the same way that the Jewish people came to recognize their calendar days), I believe that the term for "day" is not the ONLY reason to consider the Bible as depicting the world as (relatively) young. Another key reason to believe in the "young earth" position is based on the biblical account of how death–not just for humans, but also for animals–was brought into the world through sin.

Examples of evangelical proponents of the "old earth" position: Dr. Ted Cabal of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Dr. Jack Collins of Covenant Theological Seminary are two examples of "old earth" proponents who are truly evangelical. They are "evangelical" in the good, old sense of the word, meaning that they hold to the "first-order doctrines" of the Christian faith. Touching this debate, it is important to note that "old earth evangelicals" like Drs. Cabal and Collins explicitly hold to a special creation of a historical Adam and Eve: an original, historical man and woman, who fell into sin as the result of succumbing to a specific temptation, thus bringing humanity into sin, for which we all need redemption through the second Adam, the God-Man Jesus Christ.

The Issue Raised 

I believe that the "old earth" position (even when held by those who are otherwise sound) is problematic for a number of reasons. This blogpost focuses on one. Though the affirmations that Drs. Cabal and Collins make concerning the impact of a historical fall upon humanity are most crucial, there are other results of Adam's sin impacting creation as a whole. One aspect of the way that sin disrupts the original created order may be seen in the death of animals after the Fall. Whereas the "old earth" view necessarily holds to animal death occurring to the appearance of man (the [seemingly] ancient fossil record being a key piece of evidence cited for an "old earth"), the Bible depicts animal death as being the result of Man's violation of the Creation Covenant.

Following the worldwide Flood recorded in Genesis 6-9, there was a difference in how Man related to animals. This difference demonstrated in both the ongoing effects of sin and God’s gracious provision even in light of the curse. As originally created, the relationship between Man and animals was characterized by peace. Both Man and animals were originally vegetarian (Gen 1:29-30). Nothing that had “the breath of life” in it–Man or animal (Gen 1:30; 2:7; 6:17; 7:15, 22)–would need to give its life as food. When God brought the birds and beasts to Adam in order to name them (Gen 2:19)–and again when Noah brought birds and beasts onto the ark (Gen 6:19-20; 7:2-4)–there was no hint that the animals were afraid of Man (or vice versa). There was also no hint that the animals were afraid of each another.

         The first death recorded in Scripture came as a result of sin, when (instead of immediately striking Adam and Eve dead) God provided animal skins to cover over the sinners' shame (Gen 3:21). Even before God provided the animal skins, the peaceful relationship between humans and animals (and between animals with each other) began to be eroded in the curses following the fall of Man into sin, when God pronounced enmity between the woman and the serpent–her seed and the serpent’s seed–as recorded in Genesis 3:15. Though the typical, natural enmity between people and snakes pointed toward the enmity between Christ and Satan, it was also indicative of the cursed state into which the world had fallen. As marriage, childbearing, and work in general became accompanied by frustration and suffering due to the Fall (Gen 3:16-19), Man’s original dominion over the animals (Gen 1:28) also became accompanied by frustration and suffering. Following the great flood, enmity between Man and animals increased, so that now animals usually fear Man (Gen 9:2), and now animals–rather than being properly subject to Man–sometimes go so far as killing people (Gen 9:5).

         God’s words allowing Man to eat animals (Gen 9:3) are a gracious permission. Man had been expelled from the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:23-24) and the ground had been cursed, so that growing food was no easy matter (Gen 3:17-19). The great flood would have drowned all growing plants, and it would have taken time for harvests to return. Furthermore, the climate conditions on Earth post-flood were likely quite different than prior to the flood (for example: the rains bringing the flood seem to have established the current water-cycle as we know it; previously, plants were watered by a mist going up daily from the ground, Gen 2:5-6), and post-flood climate changes probably made growing crops even more difficult. Therefore, it would have been important for people to have another food-source other than fruits and vegetables.

         Though mankind was vegetarian according to the original created order, there is no sin involved in making use of God’s permission to kill and eat animals. From a biblical worldview, killing an animal is in no way equivalent to killing a human being. Following the Fall, God clothed Adam and Eve in animal skin (Gen 3:21), and the LORD found Abel’s animal sacrifices pleasing (Gen 4:4); in these cases–and in later sacrifices, in which the priests are commanded to eat the meat of the sacrifices (Lev 6:26; Deut 18:1)–the death of animals involved is in no way presented as morally problematic. Furthermore, passages such as Romans 14:2, 6, 1 Corinthians 10:25-26 and 1 Timothy 4:3 make it clear that a vegetarian diet does not make a person more spiritual.

         However, in eating beasts, Man is not to become beastly. God’s prohibition against eating blood–beginning in Noah’s time (Gen 9:4), before the Mosaic Covenant, and carried over into the New Covenant era (Acts 15:20)–is intended to promote moral sensitivity. We are not to tear into animals as if we were predators or scavengers in the animal world. We are to be dignified, thoughtful, and even worshipful in our food preparation (1 Cor 10:31).

         A state of perfectly peaceful co-existence between Man and animals–and even between animals and other animals–will be restored in the new heavens and new earth, as described by the Prophet Isaiah:

6 The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them.

7The cow and the bear shall graze; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

8The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den.

9They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. (Isa 11:6-9 ESV)

         And again:

“For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind… The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain,” says the LORD. (Isa 65:17, 25 ESV)

Conclusion

Alfred, Lord Tennyson, famously described Nature as “red in tooth and claw.” And that is how nature DOES often appear to us today. But that is NOT how it was originally created. When God pronounced each aspect of nature “good” upon its creation, as recorded in Genesis 1, He did NOT do so with a view that animals would immediately start doing violence against each other and that there will be hundreds of millions of years of animal deaths prior to the arrival of humanity. Sin placed Man under a curse, and it fundamentally disordered creation. But there will come a day when all things are set right, when all of creation is rightly ordered (“on Earth as it is in Heaven”), and when universal peace is restored.

Is our salvation based on God punishing an innocent man?

Yesterday, I retweeted the following from Matt Smethurst, an elder at Third Avenue Baptist Church in Louisville, KY, and a contributor to The Gospel Coalition:

Justification: God declares us righteous in his courtroom.

Adoption: God welcomes us into his living room.

This Tweet prompted my friend Brian Preston (who has apparently been on some kind of theological journey since leaving the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) to pose the following question: “Because He punished an innocent man?”

The following is my response.

In the sacrificial system, did the high priest shed the blood of an innocent animal on behalf of the people? When providing skins for Adam and Eve (Gen 3:21), was the blood of an innocent animal shed? Was Isaac innocent when God commanded Abraham to sacrifice him, and was the ram that God provided in his place innocent (Gen 22)? Was Joseph innocent when God purposed for him to be sent into slavery and imprisonment in Egypt, so that (once he had ascended to the throne) many might be saved through him (Gen 50:20)?

In addition to these foundational considerations from the fabric of Scripture, you have the explicit biblical statements:

“Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.” (Isa 53:4-5)

“God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” (2 Cor 5:21)

“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us,” (Gal 3:13)

These biblical statements are further understood in light of covenantal and systematic considerations, which help to demonstrate why Christ’s death is in not properly analogous to a human father/king simply sentencing his innocent son/prince to death

Covenantally: according to the Covenant of Redemption, the Son freely entered into an arrangement with the Father by which, through His perfect obedience and substitutionary death, He would be awarded a people, united to Him for the glory of His name. (It was for the joy that was set before Him that the Son agreed to this arrangement, Heb 12:2.)

Systematically: the Son and the Father, though distinct persons, are yet one God; as “will” is properly attached to nature, rather than to person, it is according to the single divine will that the Son assumes His role of mediator.

According to both of the above considerations, there can be no idea of the Son unwillingly dying.

In all of these ways and more, the truth of substitutionary atonement is abundantly displayed. Did God punish an innocent man? Yes, in a very specific sense. That innocent man, before coming as a man, was one God with the Father from eternity. That innocent God-man, before coming as a man, had agreed from eternity past to die for sinful men, so that we might be redeemed, to the glory of His grace. We are naturally under a curse, and are characterized by transgressions, iniquities, enmity, griefs, and sorrows. It is these that Christ took upon Himself on the Cross. The willing death of that innocent man in our place is good news for us sinners.

Jesus' View of Scripture Revisited

Introduction

"How do we know the Bible is the inspired Word of God? Is it because the Bible claims to be the Word of God? The Koran and the Book of Mormon also make the same claim. What other source can we rely upon to prove the inspiration of the Bible? The answer is simple: Jesus tells us the Bible is God's Word. But is this circular reasoning to use Jesus, whom the Bible speaks of, as evidence that the Bible is the Word of God? Aren't we using the Bible to prove the Bible?"
(from The introduction to "Is the Bible Inspired by God?" radio broadcast of Ligonier Ministries, 10/26/2005)

In the radio broadcact quoted above, the late Dr. John Gerstner explains how the authority of Jesus can be properly invoked to authenticate the Bible as the Word of God with the following four propositions, to which I will add some commentary and evidence that Gerstner was not able to present under the time constraint of the program.

Proposition One: "There was a being called Jesus of Nazareth as a matter of historical fact."

Even nonChristian historians recorded facts concerning the life of Christ. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (born A.D. 37) wrote,

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and (He) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned Him to be crucified and to die. And those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that He had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that He was alive; accordingly, He was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders. [from Kitab Al-Unwan Al-Mukallal Bi-Fadail Al-Hikma Al-Mutawwaj Bi-Anwa Al-Falsafa Al-Manduh Bi-Haqaq Al-Marifa]

The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (born circa A.D. 53) in addressing the subject of Christians persecuted by Nero wrote,

Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through Rome also. [Annals XV.44]

[The above quotes are found in Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell.]

Proposition Two: The Gospel accounts offer (at least) basically reliable information about Jesus of Nazareth.

This is clear especially from the Gospel account of Luke, as Luke is writing as a historian. As a historian, Luke makes record of geographic locations and political events that can be examined through archaelogical examination and Roman governmental records. On the reliability of the geographic and political information presented by Luke, Sir William Ramsay (who is regarded as one of the greatest archaelogists ever to have lived) has written,

Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. [Quoted in McDowell, Josh. Evidence That Demands A Verdict. San Bernardino: Here's Life Publishers, Inc, 1979. 71.]

Together with Luke, the other Gospel accounts give similarly verifiable historical information. And there is no reason to suspect that the Gospel writers become any less reliable when relating information about Jesus, especially as their writings on the Person and Work of Jesus Christ are based on direct eyewitness accounts.

Proposition Three: The Gospel accounts present persuasive evidence that Jesus is the Son of God.

If the Gospel accounts offer (at least) basically reliable information about Jesus of Nazareth, then we can be certain that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. This is obvious from the record of Jesus' testimony at His trial (Mark 14:61-62), from the record of Jesus' acceptance of worship as the Son of God from His disciples (Matthew 14:33), and from the record of Jesus' testimony concerning Himself (John 3:16-18).

But how can we know that Jesus' testimony is true?

Again, taking the proposition that the Gospel accounts offer (at least) basically reliable information, we have all the support we need to verify Jesus' claims to deity (and thus ulitimate authority) in the account of His resurrection.

Christianity is not just a religion of ideas, but an account of God's activity in the actual world in which we live. God has created the world that we live in and has impacted the world in concrete historical events. The Gospel writers understood the importance of establishing verifiable truth claims in order to persuade their readers that they were not just trying to spread some new myth that could be equated with other ancient beliefs or new mystery religions. This is why Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are so very careful to base their report of the most import events that they record- the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus- on eyewitness testimony.

In the resurrection of Jesus in particular, the Gospel writers appeal heavily to historical evidence to verify that Jesus did, in fact, rise from the grave. They seem especially sensitive to the doubts of their listeners on this point and so they give the names and testimonies of several people who actually saw and spoke with Jesus after He was risen from the dead. These witnesses include Mary Magdalene (Matthew 28:1-10), Mary the mother of James and Salome (Mark 16:1-8), Joanna (Luke 24:1-11), Cleopas (Luke 24:13-35), as well as the Eleven apostles, as declared by all the Gospel writers. The Apostle Paul also, in his letter to the Corinthian church, which was probably written down before the Gospel accounts were written, mentions that after His resurrection Jesus "appeared to over 500 brothers at one time, most of whom remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep" (1 Corinthians 15:6 HCSB). By this statement the Apostle demonstrates that there were many living witnesses to the resurrection at the time he wrote his letter.

Again, one outcome of Jesus' resurrection is that His self-testimony was validated- Jesus is the Son of God (as He testified numerous times) and as the Son of God, He has ultimate authority in whatever pronouncements that He makes.

Proposition Four: "Jesus taught that the Bible (the Old Testament canon completed and the New Testament canon that He was going to bring about by His inspired apostles)  is the Word of God."

Conclusion

This is not circular reasoning, but rather a linear, progressive argument: "Proposition Two" is that the Bible is basically reliable; "Proposition Three" is that the Bible offers reliable, convincing proof that Jesus is the Son of God and is therefore Himself authoritative; "Proposition Four" is that on the basis of Jesus' authority, the Bible is supremely reliable as the Word of God.

[AFTERWORD: This blogpost was originally published on 11/14/05. I do think that this is a valid argument, and it is helpful to demonstrate why, on the basis of historical data as usually accepted, we should have confidence in the facts of Jesus' view of Scripture and of His resurrection. One thing that I would want to add is a frank confession that no person is neutral concerning the facts presented; it was NOT a disinterested examination of the evidence that led me to believe that the Bible is God's Word. Rather, through the preaching of the Word, I was convicted of my sin, and I heard the message of Christ as the good news, offering me salvation in Him. It was only after I entered college, when professors and fellow students started questioning how I could know that the Bible is God's Word, that I started looking for additional confirming evidences like the argument detailed above. 

HOWEVER, I recognize that nobody will be convinced by such argumentation alone. This is not because the above argument is lacking in itself. Rather, people WILL NOT be convinced by such argumentation because they DO NOT WANT to be convinced. It takes a work of the Holy Spirit, convicting of sin and granting faith in the Savior, which allows people to trust in His Word.]