While I have great problems with any teaching that tries to
reinterpret Genesis 1 to fit into "scientific natural
observation" concerning the age of the earth, there is another
issue that enters into this discussion that I find disturbing. I
have read much material in this discussion on several web sites,
and one argument that seems to come up time and again is the
supposed effect that teaching the Bible doctrine of a young
earth has on those who we may be trying to reach. We are told by
some that if we insist on teaching that Genesis 1 teaches
literal 24 hour days (and I think it does), that there will be
people that will not listen to the gospel message (1). In other
words, if I want people to believe the gospel, then I have to
change the message of some of the Bible. On Hill Roberts' web
site, he has material in which he talks of Todd Green who is
said to have lost his faith and left the church because brethren
insisted on teaching the Bible doctrine of the young earth,
something he could not reconcile with his "scientific knowledge"
and observation (2). Roberts has other such stories that imply
that we are doing great harm to the faith of others by insisting
that the earth is young and rejecting what "science" tells us.
This is a dangerous line of thinking and a dangerous argument
that has been often used to defend modifying Bible
teaching. Through the years we have been told by some that we
need to tone down our teaching on many things so as not
to offend or cause people not to listen to gospel preaching.
Some say we must not let people know we are from the Lord's
church when we teach them, because that may prejudice them
against us. Others say don't tell them what the Bible says
about the hardships and sufferings that they must face after
becoming Christians because this may cause them not to obey. I
guess we just spring it on them after we get them wet.
By
the arguments made, those who defend teaching the flawed
scientific teachings of the age of the earth contrary to Bible
teaching, seem to want to pull out this same line of reasoning.
The consequences of such reasoning, however, extend far beyond
the teachings of Genesis 1. What of those, who because of their
scientific knowledge of biology and reproduction cannot bring
themselves to accept the virgin birth of Jesus? Sure the Bible
says that He was born of a virgin, but we know through science
that this is impossible. It is not "good biology". Are we then
to stop teaching this Bible teaching or find some figurative
explanation for it so as not to cause someone to not obey the
gospel, loose his "faith", or quit the church, because he
cannot reconcile the teaching of the Bible with known observed
and "proven science"? It is also true that it is not
scientifically viable to believe that a man could be raised up
from the dead after 3 days. On and on we could go.
Brethren, we must teach the "whole counsel of God", not just
what we decide to emphasize. Some think that since "the
apostolic message gives a special position ('first importance')
to the incarnation, death, burial, resurrection, baptismal
submission to and disciplinary imitation of Christ." (1) that
other Bible doctrines are not that important to the faith and
therefore must be abandoned when they offend others or when
others cannot reconcile them with human wisdom. I'm sorry but
"all scripture is given by the inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness."
(2 Tim. 3:16)
and "has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?"
(1 Cor. 1:20).
Other Articles
The
Indwelling of the Spirit
Hunger
Hard
Times
Psallo
Morality, the Government and Christians
Speech Made at the Funeral of Irven
Lee