Famous evangelical apologist changes his mind
RC Sproul says he is now a six-day, young-earth creationist
by Tas Walker
Photo stock.xchng
For many years RC Sproul publicly advocated a non-literal reading of the opening
chapters of Genesis. But not any more.
RC Sproul is a well-known evangelical scholar who has authored some 60 books and
produced an enormous selection of other resources such as audio tapes and videos.
According to
Ligonier Ministries, founded by Dr Sproul, he has degrees from Westminster
College, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, and the Free University
of Amsterdam. Further, he has an extensive teaching career at seminaries and colleges,
including Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando and Jackson, Mississippi, and
Knox Theological Seminary in Ft. Lauderdale.
Recently RC Sproul published a three-volume layman’s guide to the Westminster
Confession of Faith entitled Truths We Confess.1
His treatment of creation within the first volume especially caught my attention
because he says he has changed his position from what he held for most of his teaching
career. He says that he is now a six-day, young-earth creationist.
Creation is vital
Creation is foundational for the Christian church with every major Christian doctrine
coming out of the events recorded in the first chapters of Genesis. Among these
are: 1) the nature of God, including his power and goodness, 2) the nature of man,
created in the image of God but fallen because of his sin, 3) the nature and consequences
of sin, 4) the nature of marriage, 5) the origin of death as a penalty for sin,
and an enemy, 6) the need for a Saviour to redeem man from sin, 7) the origin and
meaning of work and the weekly day of rest, and 8) the relationship between man
and the rest of creation, which is now cursed because of sin, 9) and much more.
This is why the doctrine of creation is vital, but unfortunately this doctrine is
denied today, both outside and inside the church.
Dominant scientific view denies creation
Sproul is clear about the reason for this. He says that evangelical academics have
denied six-day creation, as Genesis describes, because of ‘science’:
In our time a considerable number of theories have arisen denying that the creation,
as we know it, took place in six twenty-four-hour days. Common to these theories
is the acceptance of the dominant scientific view that the earth and life on it
are very old. Many consider the biblical account to be primitive, mythological,
and untenable in light of modern scientific knowledge. (p. 120)
I like his term ‘dominant scientific view’. I also like his graphic
use of the word ‘denying’.
Sproul discusses the four main approaches that evangelical academics have taken
concerning Genesis: 1) the
gap theory, 2) the day-age theory, 3) the
framework hypothesis, and 4) six-day creation.
(p. 122)
Creation compromises
Concerning the gap theory Sproul says:
However, Scripture nowhere explicitly teaches that the original creation was marred
and then after many years, reconstituted. The broader context of the whole of Scripture
militates against the gap theory. (p. 123)
Neither does it solve the conflict with ‘science’. He also dismisses
the day-age theory:
However, the day-age theory, like the gap theory, ignores the immediate context,
as well as the larger biblical context. … From a literary, exegetical, and
linguistic perspective, the day-age theory is weak. As a Christian apologist, I
would not want to defend it. (p. 123)
The day-age theory does not resolve the conflict with ‘science’ either.
Regarding the framework hypothesis, Sproul says:
[T]he framework hypothesis allows one to step into a Big Bang cosmology while maintaining
the credibility and inspiration of Genesis 1–2. This is not history, but drama. The days
are simply artistic literary devices to create a framework for a lengthy period
of development. (p. 127)
‘For most of my teaching career, I considered the framework hypothesis to
be a possibility. But I have now changed my mind. I now hold to a literal six-day
creation, the fourth alternative and the traditional one.’—R.C. Sproul,
Truths We Confess, 2006.1
It’s an attractive idea for those who think Genesis is untenable in the light
of modern scientific knowledge. It avoids the issue. But Sproul concludes:
For most of my teaching career, I considered the framework hypothesis to be a possibility.
But I have now changed my mind. I now hold to a literal six-day creation, the fourth
alternative and the traditional one. Genesis says that God created the universe
and everything in it in six twenty-four–hour periods. According to the Reformation
hermeneutic, the first option is to follow the plain sense of the text. One must
do a great deal of hermeneutical gymnastics to escape the plain meaning of Genesis 1–2. The confession makes it a point of faith
that God created the world in the space of six days. [emphasis
in original, indicating these words are part of the Confession] (pp. 127–128)
Note his use of the words ‘traditional’ and ‘escape’. Why
try to escape the plain meaning of Scripture as traditionally accepted? As Sproul
previously indicated, it is to avoid conflict with the dominant scientific view
of evolution over millions of years, which is mistakenly regarded as fact. Significantly,
Sproul includes some important scientific evidence for a young earth to dispel this
misconception.
Return to orthodoxy
It is very encouraging to learn that Sproul has accepted creation in six days as
written. As well as the days of creation, he discusses the age of the earth and
again he clearly identifies science as the problem:
We have a problem not only with a six-day creation, but also with the age of the
earth. Is the earth a few thousand years old or billions of years old (as scientists
today insist)? (p. 121)
On a preliminary reading RC Sproul would appear to be non-committal about the age
of the earth.
Although the Bible clearly says that the world was created in six days, it gives
no date for the beginning of the work. It would be a mistake to become embroiled
in too much controversy about the date of creation. (p. 121)
However, he goes on to make it plain that he rejects the view that the earth is
billions of years old.
If we take the genealogies that go back to Adam, however, and if we make allowances
for certain gaps in them (which could certainly be there), it remains a big stretch
from 4004 BC to 4.6 billion years ago. (pp. 121–122)
‘A big stretch’! Yes, it would be a big stretch to take the genealogies
back just 10,000 years, let alone one puny million. Even then we
would be nowhere near 4.6 billion years. RC Sproul makes it clear from this statement
that he believes in a young earth. (And there is a good biblical case that the genealogies
are complete and without gaps.2)
Biblical authority in the church
With the development of naturalistic science in the west and the acceptance of evolution
and millions of years, evangelical scholars have generally stopped defending the
historicity of the early chapters of Genesis. They have tended to distance themselves
from six-ordinary-day young-earth creationists, perhaps not wanting their academic
standing to be tainted.
Within the church it is rare to find an evangelical academic commentary that will
take a stand on a six-day, recent creation.3
Many Bible timelines produced by biblical academics will avoid earth history prior
to Abraham.4
We have seen the disastrous effect of such timidity and compromise as the church
has lost much support in the west. Why should people listen when they think the
church has no answers in this scientific age?
So it is particularly encouraging to see a scholar of the stature of RC Sproul prepared
to take a stand on the Word of God as written—and defend it. I was especially
impressed that he could admit he no longer believed what he had taught for most
of his teaching career. He has set a courageous example of integrity, scholarship
and commitment to biblical authority.
May RC Sproul’s example embolden more evangelical academics to seriously consider
this controversial issue, examine the scientific evidence and refuse to be intimidated
by the dominant, anti-biblical, scientific view within our culture that opposes
the gospel. May our Bible colleges, seminaries and Christian universities be encouraged
to declare together ‘In six days’—and give a reason for the foundation
of our Christian faith.
Related articles
Further reading
Related resources
References
- Sproul, R.C., Truths We Confess: A layman’s guide
to the Westminster Confession of Faith, Volume I: The Triune God (Chapters 1–8
of the Confession), P&R Publishing, Phillipsburg, NJ, 2006.
Return to text.
- See Sarfati, J., Biblical chronogenealogies,
Journal of Creation 17(3):14–18, 2003. This makes
the case for an earth of about 6,000 years, as Archbishop Ussher calculated, very
strong. Return to text.
- For example, the New Bible Commentary by InterVarsity
Press (1994 edition) advocates the framework view and recommends avoiding issues
of science. Previous editions of the IVP Bible Commentary in the 1950s
advocated the gap theory and the day-age theory, but scholars now recognize these
as untenable, as Sproul says. Arnold, B.T., in his book Encountering the Book of
Genesis (Baker Books, 1998) recommends the day-age theory and also of avoiding
questions of science. Return to text.
- For example, the chart of Old Testament scholar Payne, D.,
formerly of London Bible College, in his Bible Timeline (Candle Books, 2002 edition)
begins at 2100 BC (about the time of Abraham) and
shows nothing earlier. It’s almost as if it has been guillotined.
Return to text.
Published: 21 May 2008(GMT+10)
Amended 22 May 2008
|
