Feedback archive → Feedback 2014
‘What if Jesus tells you you’re wrong?’
Published: 7 September 2014 (GMT+10)
A.K., United States, writes in:
Hello, I have a question that I would greatly appreciate if you could answer for me. It seems that young earth creationists put so much emphasis and belief on the literal interpretation of the Bible that says that the universe is roughly 6,000 years. I read on the cover of one of your magazines something that said roughly the following: “The God of an old earth is not the God of Christianity.” The question I have for you is the following: What if it turned out that when you die, you go to heaven and meet Jesus, and He tells you that the universe is billions of years old, and that the six days of creation in the Bible is not the literal 24 hour days. What would your reaction be? Would you be prepared to say to Jesus that because it turned out that the earth and universe was not thousands of years old, you were really not worshipping and believing in the true/correct/real God of the Bible?
Lita Cosner, CMI–US, responds:
Dear A.,
What if it turns out that when you die, Jesus tells you that you were wrong, and Muhammad is actually a true prophet of Allah and you should have been a Muslim?
I think both questions really address the same thing: what can we know with certainty from God’s revelation to us in Scripture? You trust in Jesus (I hope—your email sounds like you’re a Christian) because you are persuaded in the Bible’s teaching that Jesus is the Son of God who died on our behalf to save everyone who trusts in Him for salvation. You aren’t an eyewitness, nor are you privy to the heavenly reality that none of us can see. Your sole source for the salvation claims of Christ is the Bible. Anyone who trusts in Him does so (or should do so) on the weight of the testimony of Scripture.
Now we agree that Scripture is a sufficient witness, so much so that when it testifies about things that we can’t see or observe, we take it at its word, even against competing claims. Scripture communicates equally clearly about how God created, and the timeframe in which He created. If words mean anything at all, we can understand what the Bible says. Young earth creationists take the Bible at face value, and that’s the starting point for our interpretation of the evidence we see in the world around us. So when we see massive canyons with exposed sedimentary layers, we would attribute that to the catastrophic worldwide Flood of Noah’s day, rather than long geological processes over hundreds of thousands or even millions of years. See Did God create over billions of years?.
Jesus would not tell us the world is billions of years old any more than He would tell us to follow Muhammad—both contradict the clear teaching of Scripture.
Sincerely,
Lita Cosner
Gage C., United States, asks:
Dear CMI,
I have had a question on my mind for the past few weeks. I have heard a number of skeptics claim that we use quote-mining, or trick people into signing pro-creation petitions. How should we respond to such claims? I have read many of the quotes found on your website, and in finding their sources I have found no cases of “quote-mining”. I have not been able to find any cases of the latter “trickery” so far, however, I was wondering if you have any advice on how to deal with such accusations. I look forward to your response and many other inspiring articles on your part.
Lita Cosner responds:
Dear Gage,
I don’t know of anyone who has deceptively gotten signatures for creationist petitions, but of course we would not condone deceptive practices.
Quote mining is the practice of taking quotes out of context to make them say something other than what the author intended, and then to use them disingenuously in support of one’s own agenda. It would be like an atheist quoting the Bible as affirming their belief in atheism, because 15 places in the Bible say “There is no God”. Of course, the Christian would point out that they are in contexts like, “O Lord, God of Israel, there is no God like you” (1 Kings 8:23) or “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 53:1). The surrounding words completely change the meaning, so it is dishonest to quote only the words that say what you want it to say.
However, when atheists complain about quote mining, they usually are actually complaining about using evolutionists as hostile witnesses against the theory of evolution. For instance, Alan Feduccia, a noted ornithologist, has scathing criticisms of the notion that theropod dinosaurs evolved into birds. He is an evolutionist, but we use his writing and expertise to argue against dinosaur-to-bird evolution. That is not quote-mining.
As a writer myself, I do not want to be taken out of context, so I personally want to make sure that I use integrity when I’m quoting others. So I will often say things like “Evolutionist ornithologist Alan Feduccia”, or so on, to make it clear that this particular person’s sympathies do not lie with creationists. But it is absolutely valid to use evolutionists’ quotes criticizing certain aspects of evolution to advance an argument for biblical creation.
Sincerely,
Lita Cosner
Readers’ comments
On the other hand if we are commanded to live TODAY in the kingdom of God we must be able to know certain things are TRUE today to function in the here and now.
Jesus told us the Scripture cannot be broken. So we believe the Scripture. When Genesis says that fish beget fish and cattle beget cattle, we believe that life forms are stable and not pliable into other forms as Darwin claimed. When Genesis says there was a worldwide flood, we believe that the Earth's crust was massively altered in Noah's day and that modern geologists who fail to believe a flood occurred have left out the most important fact about geological history. The Apostle Peter warns us not to believe geologists when they claim we only have to present to interpret the past and willing forget Noah's flood. So why would I trust geologists who contradict Jesus and Peter by willingly ignoring such truth? If we cannot trust geologists then we cannot trust their conclusions about the age of the Earth.
So my answer is: If Jesus tells me I am terribly wrong I will thank Him that He allowed me into Heaven without merit on my part - but then again I might still be sinfully impertinent and ask Him why He never put this important information in the Bible so that I would not make such a wicked mistake. So let's turn the question around - what would Jesus say in response to my impertinent question? If our questioner cannot answer this he cannot pose the original question.
I ran across a quote yesterday by someone named Gene Cook, which I think is apropos to this very subject: "There are two different kinds of revelation, natural revelation, which we find in the world, and special revelation, which we find in the word of God. A basic rule of Biblical interpretation is that we should always interpret natural revelation through the grid of special revelation, that is the word of God. We don't look at the world and then say this is truth, therefore we must conform the Scriptures to what we see. This view is a deadly mistake and would lead to atheism. I interpret science through the lens of the Word of God, which presupposes the truth of Genesis 1-3. There is no evidence of higher value or authority than the Word of God."
The second letter brings up something that our ministry deals with frequently (and yours, far more than ours): Quote mining. It seems that whenever someone cites a hostile witness that admits to problems with evolution, they are accused of "quote mining" as a reflexive retort. (In fact, I have been called a liar for making things up, even after I have provided reference materials. That effectively ends the discussion.) Some will say, "Yes, but the one you quoted is still an evolutionist!", as if I was saying that s/he had converted. Lita gave me something that I want to implement: "As a writer myself, I do not want to be taken out of context, so I personally want to make sure that I use integrity when I’m quoting others. So I will often say things like “Evolutionist ornithologist Alan Feduccia”, or so on, to make it clear that this particular person’s sympathies do not lie with creationists". I will endeavor to be more consistent in saying that I am citing an evolutionist when I do this. Thanks for the good work.
Depending on your views, this COULD be quite different to your question about Muhammad - of COURSE I'd be willing to say I was worshiping the wrong God, if it turns out Muhammad was His prophet! But even if we agree that the earth is young, I personally find it much to strong to say I was worshiping the wrong God merely because I was wrong about the age of the earth (I know old age can sometimes lead to OTHER wrong assumptions, but this question is only dealing the the age issue).
If you aren't willing to say that age of the earth (on its own) is enough for you to admit you're worshiping the complete wrong God, then it seems your title 'The God of an old earth is not the God of Christianity' has been misleading to your reader.
Maybe you were trying to say something less exclusive, e.g. that the God of an old earth is slightly different to the God of Christianity (but no so different to be 'the completely wrong God'). Or e.g. that the God of Old Earth can sometimes (with other associated assumptions) lead to a God which is completely wrong. Or did you intend to be as strong as the question suggests, and thus be willing to say you were worshiping the complete wrong God if Jesus said the earth was billions of years old?
We've said multiple times in our articles that one's stance on creation isn't a salvation issue. The point of this article is: do you believe God's revelation in Scripture or not? If you believe it about some things (Jesus is Lord) and not others (God created the earth in 6 days), what basis do you have for picking and choosing?
Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.