End-times and Early-times
by Dr Don Batten
Bible-believing Christians can differ on their understanding of endtime matters
(eschatology) and other things such as form of church government, mode and subject
of baptism, and Sabbath observance. So why make an issue about the days of creation?
Surely this is just another one of those issues where we can tolerate various views,
without criticizing each other?
On the surface, this sounds like a good argument. However, let’s tease it
out. Christians generally differ in their understanding of eschatology on the basis
of their different interpretations of Scripture alone. The differences in views
do not originate from anything outside of the Bible. So, the Reformation principle,
sola scriptura (‘Bible alone’), guides the various people in
arriving at their conclusions. Disagreements over eschatology, baptism, etc. begin
and end with the Bible—the authority of the Bible is not normally an issue.
However, when it comes to Genesis, virtually everyone agrees about what Genesis
says and how the writer(s) meant readers to understand it—six ordinary days
of creation where everything was very good, and death and suffering entered the
world through the sin of Adam and Eve; the global Flood; etc. (see
Hebrew scholar affirms that Genesis means what it says! also in this issue).
But outside influences generate the differing viewpoints—for example, the
conjectures of the historical sciences such as cosmology, paleontology and archaeology.
Take, for example, this statement by Charles Hodge, famous Princeton Seminary professor
and contemporary of Darwin, who wrote many books and articles defending the truths
of Christianity, including biblical inerrancy: ‘It is of course admitted that,
taking this account [Genesis] by itself, it would be most natural to understand
the word [day] in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account
into conflict with facts [millions of years], and another sense avoids such conflict,
then it is obligatory on us to adopt that other’1
[our explanatory additions].
Many other theologians have made similar statements.2 That is, that the Bible clearly teaches creation in six
ordinary days thousands of years ago, but that they cannot believe it that way because
of modern interpretations of the fossils and rocks that invoke millions of years.
So if ‘science’ now dictates how we are to understand Genesis, then
this puts ‘science’ as judge over the Bible, and sola scriptura no longer
guides the understanding of Genesis.3
So the matter of our understanding of Genesis does not compare with disagreements
over eschatology. The disputes over eschatology are over what the Bible teaches,
with reference to nothing else. In other words, with eschatology it is a matter
of exegesis—‘what does the Bible say?’ But with Genesis the dispute
stems not from what the Bible clearly teaches, but from the various attempts to
make it fit external conjectures. In other words, with Genesis it is a matter of
eisegesis—making the Bible say what I want it to say, to fit into long-age
ideas from geology, for example.
With eschatological debates, the Bible is still the rule of faith, but with Genesis
compromise, ‘science’ has become the rule of faith. The difference is
stark. Disputes over end-times and baptism presuppose the authority of Scripture;
debates on Genesis creation depend on whether the Bible or man’s long-age
science is the final authority.
Related article
References and notes
- Hodge, C., Systematic Theology, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co., Michigan, USA, pp. 570–571, 1997. Return.
- Sarfati, J., Refuting Compromise, Master Books, Arkansas, USA, pp.
55–58, 2004. Return.
- Rather, scriptura sub scientia (Scripture below science)
now governs the understanding of Genesis. Return.
| Manna from heaven? Because this site and the information it contains is free, you might think so. However, lots of hard work went into producing it. Your gifts help to produce this ‘manna’ for others.  | | |
|
