Answers In Genesis - Sunday School - Week 22

, I hope you guys had a great week in the Lord. let's go ahead and pray and we're gonna be basically talking about, the various, particularly Christian views. Of creation. and how to, how to view Genesis.

Let's go ahead and pray. Lord, we thank you so much for this time to be together in your presence, to study your word. We thank you, Lord, for giving us your word that is clear. And we just ask God that you would just fill us with your spirit and that we would be able to engage these matters together.

And that you would help us to grow, thereby in Christ's name we pray. Amen. All right. I want to start off by telling you a little story.

Pastor Melton, back in the early part of 2000, it was around 2003, I think. We started on this adventure through First Corinthians. And before we started studying First Corinthians., we felt very, very comfortable with where we were as a church. we, we saw ourselves as a teaching church.

We saw ourselves as exposing the word. We felt like we were doing a good job in getting the word to God's people. And, but at the same time, we, our basic approach to the word of God is, Lord, as we study your word, if we discern things from the text of scripture that differs from our current place where we are, we wanna grow, we wanna change. And as we started going through First Corinthians, the Lord began to first do a work in Pastor Milton.

he began to be impressed with how much the gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ for he deserving sinners was so central to everything that Paul was writing about, that it is the very center point, the power of God. And the, it's not like we've never known that before, but it was really hitting Pastor Milton in a fresh way. That the gospel is not just something that saves the unbeliever, it's something that gives power for believers to obey God. That it's, that we, we obey God out of gospel motivations.

And so there really began to be this revolution as we studied through First Corinthians and it, it changed the church. It was the text of scripture, a straightforward reading of the Bible that began to alter our positions. And, and then in I forget exactly what part of the year we began to study 1 Corinthians 11. Does anybody know what 1 Corinthians 11, the first part of it has to do with head coverings, right?

First, the first part of 1 Corinthians 11. There's the second part deals with communion, but the first part deals with this whole, this weird strange practice that you pretty much just see like maybe Eastern Orthodox people do, maybe really conservative Catholics or Islamic people, right? Put, ladies put heads on their, on their heads when they study or when they pray. and so, Everybody, I would say probably if you were to survey people in our church, probably 100% of the people would have said that 1 Corinthians 11 is merely a cultural issue, including myself, including our Pastor Milton, and that we just need to understand it as something that Paul was talking about for that culture of the time, it had no application for the future other than the fact that there's some things right there in the text that deal with relationships between men and women and how we should relate and so on and so forth.

As we began to take our approach, our hermeneutics to the Bible, which basically says, let's just study the word in its context. Let's try to figure out what the author is saying, and let's apply good hermeneutics in whatever the Bible says, that's what we want to do. As we began to go through that passage, Pastor Milton, and then the staff and then the elders, and as it was being preached through, we were looking for every way possible to get around that text. I'll be honest with you.

We were trying to find every way possible to to support our position at the time that head coverings are merely a cultural issue. The problem was Hermeneutics. What is hermeneutics? Herman I, who's Herman?

Herman who? Hermeneutics is basically what are the rules of interpretation. One of the core rules of interpretation. Is that If you have a certain teaching in the Bible, That is supported by going back to core doctrines like say in Genesis, back to things like the Trinity or the relationship between the Father and the Son and the Spirit that more often than not, unless it's clearly indicated in the text, it's transcultural, it's not cultural.

So for instance, when, when Paul says greet one another with a, with a holy kiss, does Paul support those instructions with some doctrine by going back to the Trinity or going back to Genesis one? No, he's just telling at the end of his letter, telling one group or another, say, hey, greet each other with a holy kiss. And so we interpret that as a cultural greeting and we do not command people at Cornerstone Fellowship Bible Church here in Riverside. We don't say, hey, God is telling you to all greet each other with a holy kiss like they do over in Russia.

In the churches of Russia. We don't do that. Why? Because hermeneutically, we understand that this is what the culture said at the time, and Paul's not trying to support his rationale with any doctrinal support.

When we came to 11 Corinthians, what we ran into is that Paul goes to the Trinity, Paul goes to Adam and Eve, the same things that he does in 1 Timothy 2, Paul goes to doctrine to support his viewpoints. For example, if you want to turn here, you can. This is all introductory stuff. 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy chapter 2, we'll just give you a little analogy of what this hermeneutical principle is.

1 Timothy chapter 2. Paul says this. In chapter in chapter 2 verse 12, and I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over man, but to be in silence. So the main teaching that Paul's giving here is he doesn't allow women to speak in a, to teach in a mixed setting, to have authority over a man.

as we compare scripture to scripture, he's clearly not saying that women can never teach. He's clearly not saying that women can't teach other women. He's not saying that a wife and a husband can't have a conversation where she's instructing him on things like how to do the taxes. But what he is saying is in mixed settings, I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over men, but to be in silence.

This is a in church gathered, church gathered type of passage. Now if Paul were to stop there, theoretically we could say, what, I think this is just a cultural issue. There were some issues that were going on in the Ephesians Church and that's why Paul's given this command. But what is his rationale?

Does he say, hey, I'm just talking to you Ephesians? No, what does he say? Verse 13, 4, what? Adam, Was formed, what?

First, then Eve. So he goes back to Genesis to argue for the command that he's just given. When an apostle gives a command and then goes back to Genesis to support it, guess what? Is it cultural or not cultural?

It's, it's not, it's what we would call super cultural or normative. That's a hermeneutical principle. Then he goes on to say and Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression. So he goes back to Genesis to support his command.

Paul's clearly taking Adam as literal and Eve is literal and saying that Adam was formed, whatever that means. He was formed first, Eve was formed second or then Eve, or actually Adam was formed then Eve. And so As we were going on this journey through First Corinthians, we began to move through that text and then began to realize, oh, this does not teach what we thought it taught. And so we began, Pastor Milton began to take us to about a 4-week series trying to exposit the text and as to why the current position that most people hold on 1 Corinthians 11, we believed was not the best way to take the text.

Now, here's what we did not do after that teaching. What we did not do after that teaching is to suddenly say that everybody in every other church that does not take our view on 1 Corinthians 11 are unbelievers. We didn't suddenly say that John MacArthur, who does not take the same position as us, is an unbeliever. We didn't suddenly say that RC Sproul, who does believe in head coverings, is a true believer, but John MacArthur is not.

Now, why did we not say that John MacArthur is an unbeliever because he doesn't believe in our position on 1 Corinthians 11, even though we believe that our take on 1 Corinthians 11 is right? Why would we not call John MacArthur an unbeliever? Yeah, we're dealing with an issue that as we try to gauge. How central is this to a salvation issue?

Is this is gonna determine whether somebody goes to heaven or not? We don't see this as determining whether someone's gonna go to heaven or not. This doesn't necessarily affect our soteriology per se or our doctrine of justification. However, could this affect someone's view of hermeneutics?

If somebody looks at 1 Corinthians 11 and says, even though this seems to be a straightforward reading, even on an, and, and people will say this, a straightforward reading of 1 Corinthians 11 would lead us to just such a view as our seas sprawl holds. However, because we know that, that this is not the right viewpoint, it's cultural, we reject the straightforward reading of 1 Corinthians 11. Same thing is said in 1 Timothy chapter 2. People will say, commentators will say, if we reach 1 Timothy chapter 2 in straightforward reading, it would lead to just such a position as John MacArthur and, and Al Mohler and RC Sproull and a lot of other people who believe that a straightforward reading of 1 Timothy 2 leads to just such a position that we hold in this church and many others hold, and that is that that past the, the role of a pastor is reserved for men.

That women are gifted and have many other roles in the church, but the pastors, the elders, that is a role reserved for men, according to 1 Timothy 2. There are people that will read 1 Timothy 2 and say, a straightforward reading, if we read it straightforward like they do, we agree. However, we know that that can't be true because that would be sexist. And so what do they do?

They bring forward a philosophical understanding that influences their interpretation of the text. Does that mean that people take a different view from us in 1 Timothy chapter 2 or 1 Corinthians chapter 11 or unbelievers? No. Does that mean that these issues are totally unimportant, that we shouldn't talk about them?

No. It is very important for us to talk about them. In fact, as our staff was talk, as we began to talk about 1 Corinthians 11, we began to see that there are actually some significant reasons or there's some significant outcomes for where people go on 1 Corinthians 11. But as the Lord directed us or we believe as we began to pray, we encourage people to follow their own conscience and their understanding of 1 Corinthians 11, even though from the pulpit.

We promoted a particular understanding of that text. The reason I bring that up is because it's very significant for what we're gonna talk about this morning. We're gonna talk about different views that Christians hold on creationism. And if you've been at Cornerstone for any length of time, if you've been here since Pastor Milton started Genesis chapter one, raise your hand if you think what Pastor Milton's view is on how to read the book of Genesis.

Raise your hand if you think his viewpoint. OK. Raise your hand if you think that Pastor Milton Would fall into the camp of the gap theory. We're gonna be talking about the gap theory a little bit.

Raise your hand if you think Pastor Milton falls into the, into the camp of of theistic evolution. Raise your hand if you think Pastor Milton falls into the camp of younger creationism. Yeah, if you've been here following a straightforward verse by verse take of the text, if you've been listening, while Pastor Milton hasn't necessarily announced, hey everybody, I am giving you a young Earth approach to this text. That's exactly what you guys have determined.

He has tried to do what he, what he believes is just a straightforward exposition of the text which has led Pastor Milton to a viewpoint which basically equals Young Earth creationism. And so that's what we're gonna be talking about is various views. And so the view that Pastor Milton holds and the view that I happen to hold is a particular viewpoint that actually these days a very few amount of Christians hold. It's a minority position.

So let's ask a couple of questions and we'll get into the text. How do you determine if a particular teaching is a salvation issue doctrine? That's where we're gonna talk about that and give examples of salvation issue doctrines. Salvation issue doctrines, we're gonna argue that it's something that hinges upon whether a person goes to heaven or hell, or it can also hinge upon, their, their sanctification.

So if someone comes in and says, hey, you need to do this in order to be saved. You got to be circumcised in order to be saved. Paul says, anathema, right? But somebody else might come in and say, what, you're saved by grace alone through faith, but God's gonna be more happy with you if you get up at 5 in the morning and pray every morning at 5.

God will be more happy and pleased with you. OK, that is an issue that's not, it's not necessarily heaven or hell, but it can hinge upon the doctrine of salvation because now we're thinking we have to, we do certain works, otherwise God's gonna have a frown on his face, over his children. And so we'll talk about that a little bit later. Second question we're gonna try to answer, if a particular teaching is not a salvation issue, doctrine, does that mean it is unimportant?

Answer, we're gonna suggest no. There are some doctrines that people can make a big deal about that maybe aren't necessarily all that important. It's particularly if the Bible doesn't even really say a whole lot about it. Right?

If the Bible doesn't really say a whole lot about an issue, then it may not be as important as other issues where the Bible says a lot about those issues. give examples of non-salvation issue doctrines. Well, we just did, head coverings. We would not put that into a, a salvation issue and the issue that we're talking about this morning, creationism, the various views of creationism we're not gonna put into a salvation issue.

Little advertisement at the Masters Seminary, or Master's College, I'm sorry. They're gonna have a symposium, their 2-second symposium, Sands of Time. That's at the February 27th, Doctor John Whitmore, if you're interested, you can go online to the Masters EDU creation. Just Google basically creation symposium, Master's College, you'll find it.

On March 20th, we're just as a reminder, Matthew McLean is gonna be here at Cornerstone. He's gonna speak in this class on dinosaurs. He is a geologist over at Loma Linda and then he's gonna get, and then he's gonna preach on Sunday morning on worldview issues. So we're very excited to have him come out.

This class, of course, is our Sunday equipment school, God is the Creator. Let's do a little bit of review. As we've talked about many times, it is important to understand the lenses through which we view the world. I'm looking at you all right now.

When I take off my glasses, suddenly I can't see many of you very well. You all of a sudden turn blurry. In the back, there's some people back there. I can see, a baby.

I'm not sure who that is, but my, the glasses I put on affect my viewpoint, severely. when we consider the age of the Earth, everyone looks at the same evidence and interprets it based at different starting point assumptions. That is our working approach to this whole question. is that we're dealing with issues that involve interpretation.

And you must Well, everybody looks at the exact same evidence, not everybody comes to the same conclusion. Let's walk into a chemistry lab for a second. We walk over into the chemistry lab and people are doing chemistry experiments, particularly for like, say a, a company in their area. And you've got an atheist and you've got a Christian, and you've got a young Earth creation, you got an old earth creationist, and you've got a Buddhist, and they're all running the same experiments, doing chemistry.

how much do you think their particular religion or worldview is going to affect the outcome of their experiments? Doesn't affect it a whole lot. At least the, the, the raw material of their experiments, they're they're using the scientific method. They're putting different chemicals together.

They're testing the, the, the chemical reactions and they, they can repeat this. However, you take those same individuals, you have them begin to look at rocks and begin to date rocks and begin to interpret how old bones are and what happened and why it happened. How many different viewpoints are you gonna get on that, on the evidence? It's all over the place.

Even if you have a bunch of unbelievers lined up looking at a bone, you're gonna get multiple different dates, you're gonna get multiple different interpretations of how to understand that bone. Why? It's because the nature of the type of science that we're looking at when we talk about creation, when we talk about where the world came from, is very dependent upon what glasses you're putting on. Once you determine your starting point, the outcomes are almost inevitable.

And so that's what we're going to see this morning is that there are certain starting points that believers have that lead them to inevitable results. Some introductory statements. Today's lesson is a snapshot of the various views that believers hold to regarding God's timing and method of creation. Some of you may not agree with some of the ideas that we'll be talking about so far in this class, you've probably, you maybe have attended this class, and maybe you don't particularly agree.

That's fine. I've gone out to lunch with a few people who have different viewpoints, been able to talk over these things, just had a great time. That's totally fine. It is my hope that you will come away from today's lesson with a better understanding of the different views and a sure understanding of the Bible's teaching on the issues.

Couple of other things. We're going to talk about broad categories of thinking. Don't take offense if I describe something that you believe and place you into a category that you may not, that you may have specific differences with. we're talking about broad categories.

when we talk about the gap theory, while there's, Thomas Chalmers has like his theory. And, but there are as many varieties of gap theorists as there are of people who have pre-tribulational rapture. Right? There's all kinds of different slices on what they'll say and what they won't say on certain issues.

These broad categories encompass lots of different versions, so be careful not to assume that somebody believes exactly what we include in these categories today. Also, as we've discussed in the past, there are ultimately only two worldviews. There is a God who has made the universe, and there is not. We're going to set aside the atheistic view of the origin of the universe today and just look at different views Christians hold.

Right? So every view that we're talking about this morning is held by somebody who believes in Christ Jesus, died on the cross, was raised from the dead, is the sin of the right hand of the Father is returning again. Every view that we're gonna talk about today is believed by people who say that they believe the whole word of God. They believe that the Bible is the word of God.

And most, not everybody in every camp, but a lot of people in every camp also hold to the doctrine of inerrancy. They believe that the Bible is inerrant. Although how they define inerrancy will be different amongst a number of the proponents of the positions. So let's go ahead and read Genesis one.

Let's take a look. Just to remind ourselves, we've been studying this a long time. You're like, Mike, why do we have to read Genesis one again? Cause it's the Bible.

And today is the, what is today? What's so special about today? No, not the Super Bowl. Today is the Lord's Day.

Today is the Lord's Day and today is Communion Sunday. Although we're excited to see the Super Bowl too. Go Cam Newton. All right.

That's supposed to be a joke, but I do like Cam Newton. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. We've argued for the Trinity in the past, right from that text.

Then God said, let there be light, and there was light. God saw the light and it was good. Was it good or bad? It was good.

And God divided the light and the darkness, and God called the light day and the darkness he called night. So there's a a use of the word day to clearly refer, be distinguished from night. So, evening and morning, we're the first what? That particular day has an evening and a morning.

Verse 6, then God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters. Let them divide the waters from the waters. Then God made the firmament, divided the waters from which were under the firmament and the waters which were above the firmament, and it was so, and God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the 2nd what?

The second day had a what? an evening and a Morning. All right, that's Genesis 1:1-8. From looking at the text alone, is there a gap?

Would you just suddenly look at the text and say, there is a big huge gap of time between verse 1 and 2. Just a straightforward reading. Remember we got Moses writing to people that are about ready to cross over into Jordan, cross over the Jordan into Canaan, as Moses is, is rehearsing for them, the creation of the world. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

The earth was without form of void and darkness was on the face of the deep. Would you determine a big gap of millions of years between verse 1 and 2 by a straightforward reading of the text? No, you just wouldn't come up with that. However, that doesn't mean that it's not there.

You just, on a straightforward read the first time, you wouldn't see it. But maybe there's some reason why it is there. From the text, is there any reason to think that the days are overlapping periods of time? We have 1st day, 2nd day, 3rd day, 4th day, 5th day.

each day is spoken of as morning and evening, morning and evening. Is there, would there be any idea just from a straightforward reading of the text where you would think that day 1 overlaps with day 2 by hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of years. Day 2 overlaps with day 3, and so the idea is, is, are there, are there these like rainbows of time? Day 1, Lands and it starts here and ends here.

Day 2 starts somewhere in the middle of day 1, comes over this way. Day 3 starts in the middle of day 2, comes this way. Would you get that from a straightforward reading of the text? Raise your hand.

Well, I'm not gonna put you guys on the spot. So that's Genesis 1:18. Is there any reason to think that these events happened over millions or billions of years just from the text? We're not talking about scientifically yet.

You might say, hey, scientifically, it's obvious that there's millions and millions of years, but from the text, just reading the Bible, is there any reason why you'd look at this and suddenly say, aha. The Lord is saying that he created these in, in verses 1 to 8, we see millions and millions of years. No, the Jews who were about ready to cross over the Jordan to take Canaan probably would not arrive at that position. You always remember hermeneutically, right?

The Holy Spirit gives his word to a prophet, in this case is who? Moses, who writes it down on the text, and then he's writing to whom? An original? Audience.

We always consider the original audience as we make our interpretation. We never just go God speaking directly to me, God speaking directly to our time period, it's God speaking to the original audience first. The original audience, there's no indication that the original audience would look at this and say, oh, I see millions of years. Next, is there anything in the text of Genesis 1 to 2, and we've read the whole text before, that would indicate that mankind evolved from early, earlier hominid creatures.

As you read Genesis 1 to 2, and Pastor Milton's preached through it. Have you guys ever heard Pastor Milton say, now what this means is, is there was a pre-Adamic race that was soulless and then God came and put a soul into some pre-Adamic, Homo sapien that now became a Homo sapien that he then considered to be Adam. Has Pastor Milton never said that from the pulpit? Has Pastor Milton never said that what this means is we have pre-hominid creatures.

Not that I recall. I haven't heard it. There's a reason why Pastor Milton hasn't said that, and that's because he's preaching verse by verse to the text and the text gives no indication of pre-adamic early hominid creatures. OK.

So let's do this. We're gonna talk about the most, popular Christian views on, creation and origins. We're gonna start with the gap theory. And and try to give you guys an understanding.

Of this particular theory. This is originally proposed by Thomas Chalmers in the early 1800s. And there's different variations of it, all, all kinds of different viewpoints, but the, the basic thing that most gap theorists would agree is millions of years ago, God created the universe and everything in it as recorded in Genesis 1:1. So all the believers who argue for the gap theory, do they believe that God created the universe?

Absolutely. They believe that God created the universe and everything in it just like it says in chapter one verse one. something during the subsequent millions of years, Lucifer rebelled or sometime during the subsequent years, Lucifer rebelled and was thrown to earth. they call this Lucifer's flood.

Everybody say Lucifer's flood. Lucifer, Lucifer's flood, which destroyed all plant and animal life on Earth, thus producing the fossil record in the rock layers. So, the gap theorist, Thomas Chalmers is looking at the fossil record, and it's very clear that we have millions of dead things laid down by water all over the earth. Everybody agrees with that data.

You have millions of dead things. How many dead things? Millions laid down by what? Water all over the earth.

That data is undeniable. Everybody believes it. OK. What What Chalmers proposed is that God created on the first day, Genesis 1:1, Millions of years ago, he created a good creation.

But then there's a gap between verse one and two, and in that gap, God threw Satan down the earth. There's this flood, Satan's flood, which destroyed all plant and animal life on the earth, thus providing, producing the fossil record. Is there anywhere in this text that you can determine that Satan was cast to the earth causing a flood between verse 1 and verse 2? No, you would not get that from this text.

At the same time as this flood, the earth was plunged into darkness and thus became without form and void as recorded in Genesis 1 and 2. So this is a pretty key phrase to the gap theorist is without form and void. The, the interpretation of without form and void is that this is to be interpreted as a very, very negative, phrase. They'll flip over to Isaiah, find terms in the Hebrew that are very, that are basically exactly the same.

even though Isaiah is written around 700 BC, we have Genesis written by Moses, many, many, many, many, many years earlier. They would say Isaiah basically picks up this phrase. And uses it in a very negative way. So, therefore, without form of void should be interpreted as negatively in Genesis chapter 1, OK?

That's theoretically possible. However, one of the roles of interpret of hermeneutics is you try to interpret the words and the, and the text in its immediate context first. If it makes sense in a certain reading, right there in the immediate context, then you don't really need to run outside of that paragraph to figure out what it means. However, if you're reading the paragraph and you're just like, what in the world does that mean?

I can't figure out what that means. Then the next place you go to is within the whole chapter. Are there any other places in the chapter where it seems to be used or what can help us figure it out? Then you go to the book, then you go to other writings of Moses, and then you can start to branch out from there.

So in this particular viewpoint, they jump out to Isaiah, a different book, different author, hundreds of years later and import that particular meaning into chapter one. The is that theoretically possible? I have to say yes. in my viewpoint, it's hermeneutically not the best starting place, not the best starting place.

so this, so Thomas Chalmers says the fossils found in the Earth's crust are relics of the original perfect world that God created, which was destroyed before the six literal days of creation or recreation. This is important. I want you guys to write this down and underline this. Let's read that again.

Fossils found in the Earth's crust are relics of the originally what, what world? Perfect world. They all believe that verse one, God created everything perfectly, right? It's a perfect world.

But then you have Satan's flood, and that caused all of the fossils. Is it a perfect world or an imperfect world? Perfect world. OK, so now, but here's, here's the thing, which is restored before 6 literal days of creation.

The wonderful thing about the gap theorist, and, and to be honest with you, if I was the young Earth creationist, I'd be a gap theorist. Why? Because the gap theorists take the rest of the text literally. They put this gap between verse 1 and verse 2, but then the rest of it, you just read it straight forward.

Day 2, day 3, day 4, day 5, day 6, it's all just literal creation. We get millions of years because of the gap, but everything else is read in a very straightforward way, and I'm all for straightforward reading of the Bible. The straightforward understanding of the Bible according to just the average person. If, if you're non-scholarly reader who can, can just read the Bible for themselves and get a straightforward reading of the text, not always, but many, many, many times, that's gonna end up being the proper reading.

is this cause God, the Bible is not written to scholars. The Bible is not written to just pastors. The Bible is written to people, just average people, right? Just average people in their original context.

OK, so let's go on, popularized by resources such as Schofield reference Bible. So I've got this, this right here is a Schofield reference Bible. I love this Bible. It's got all my notes in it.

It's just falling apart. I need to get it rebound. But this teaches the gap theory in its notes. typically, the age of the Earth and the universe are left to science to determine, but biological evolution is rejected.

So we reject evolution of species, particularly molecules to man. But however old the earth is, we need to leave that to science. We don't really know how old it is, but we can read the Bible and the Bible seems to indicate on a straightforward reading that we don't have evolution of molecules to man type of evolution. OK, so that in summary is the gap theory.

Any questions you guys have about the gap theory? Very popular viewpoint. Let me just give you a real brief history of, of creationism and where we're at. At the turn of the century, as you move into the 19, you, you, you, you have Darwin that rises up to the late 1800s.

When you move into the 1900s and get into the rise of the fundamentalist movement, we say fundamentalists in the, in the 1910s and 1920s, this is an academic intellectual movement. We're talking about Main and BB Warfield and all these people. These guys were trying to uphold the fundamentals of the faith, i.e., the doctrine of Christ's deity, his virgin birth, his resurrection from the dead, the real atonement. So all these really incredibly amazing believers are trying to uphold what we all affirm about the gospel, about the person of Christ.

However, virtually all of them had bought into some form of evolution or the gap theory. Creationism for amongst Christians that were in the academic world had died. The straightforward, when, when I say creation, young earth creationism. It was a dead thing because those that were interfacing with the academics of their time, there was no way they would be laughed out of the room if they came in and said we believe in a straightforward reading of Genesis.

they would have no interactions with their, with these colleagues. And so young Earth creationism was, was dead. It was not a non-issue at the time that Thomas Chal Chalmers, at the turn of the century. so let's talk about theistic evolution.

We'll give a couple of summaries here. I would agree that life on Earth has evolved from simple organisms. So we talk about theistic evolution, you got simple organisms. So just think of what a lot of you guys learned in your textbooks in, in public school.

You got simple organisms that evolve into complex organisms. Some believe God created the first spark of life. Others believe it happened naturally according to the laws God ordained from the universe. Some would accept that God had no intervening role in the evolution of life.

Others, see God guiding the process, at important steps. So like, even unbelieving scientists acknowledge this period in evolution, they call it punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium is basically the reinvention of Darwin's theory because Darwin's theory was not working. It wasn't being found in the fossil records.

Darwin's theory was that you have very slow gradualism of one species to another, but what in fact you find in the fossil record is this explosion. Explosion of species. And so in order to explain how you suddenly have an explosion of species, you have this concept called punctuated equilibrium. They say that evolution moved very gradually, but when you get to a certain place in the fossil record, all of a sudden it just moved very fast.

When they say very fast, they mean thousands of years rather than millions of years. All right? So, So basically, so others are seeing God guiding the process. So Christians would look at punctuated equilibrium and say, huh, there's where God was guiding the process, punctuated equilibrium.

OK, most would agree that humans evolved from previous hominids and God injected a spirit into man at some point. In fact, this is probably a, this is a very popular theory amongst the theistic evolutionists, is that, so you have Lucy, you have the Neanderthals, so on and so forth. They're developing, they're soulless, pre-hominid, pre-adamic creatures, right? But then God comes along and picks two out of the Neanderthals or pre-damic creatures and says, you are Adam and Eve.

And then he puts a soul in them, and now that becomes what we're talking about when we talk about Adam and Eve in the Bible. Others believe all life was allowed to evolve and at a certain point, God specially created Adam and Eve as the first humans. So others would say, yeah, we have, Lucy and, and the various, Neanderthals and other types of developments. But then God specially created Adam and Eve.

Those all died out. The hominid creatures died out, but you have Adam and Eve that were specially created, by God. Regardless, the disease, death, and struggle to survive were part of God's original plan for the creation. They would argue that it was good that we have a struggle for life and that, that, that's actually part of the good that, that Genesis is talking about.

The days of Genesis one are viewed as poetic expression of the vast ages of Earth's history, a day age interpretation. so there's long, long periods of time. Every time the word day or yam is used in Genesis one, it's just speaking of long, long periods of time. We have no idea how long it really is.

It's just long periods. And there was never a globe covering flood. Very important to this theory. in the gap theory, you do have a flood, but when did it happen?

Between 1 and 2, it's called Satan's flood or Lucifer's flood. We're not talking about the Noaic flood. We're talking about Lucifer's flood. In the theistic evolution, there is no global flood.

There's localized flood. Or maybe, maybe the whole story of, of Noah the ark is really meant to be just a, it's just a, a story to teach a spiritual lessons. Or maybe it was the Mesopotamian area, but there's no global flood in theistic evolution. The day age view was popularized by Hugh Miller in the early 1800s at the same time Chalmers was espousing the gap theory.

As Darwin introduced ideas on biological evolution, those explanations were incorporated into the day age views and have continued to today. All right, so those, and then organizations like Discovery Institute, Biologos, sponsor teachers who teach various forms of theistic evolution. All right, any questions you guys have about theistic evolution? Moving along.

Yes, Larry. Oh. What? with Yeah, we'll, we'll talk about that in a second.

the big reason is because If you start, if you start with science and you start with nature. It is ridiculous. This is from their viewpoint. It is ridiculous to believe that the whole earth was covered with water.

That's just scientifically ridiculous. So if you start with that presupposition that a, a global flood is scientifically ridiculous, then when you get to Genesis 6 to 9, You just can't read that straightforward and be taken seriously. The thing that Yeah, well, scientists know. if, if, if you just look at how much water there is on the Earth right now, you look at how high the mountains are.

To say that the whole world was covered with water. is just nonsense. This is coming from their viewpoint. And if, if, if we're gonna be taken seriously by unbelievers, if we're gonna make an impact in our culture, then we've got to set, we've got to just make some admissions that certain things that, yes, Christians have believed in the past were literal.

We now know, science has has proven that these things are false. And so, so then there must be some reason we believe that God in His word does not lie and we believe in the Bible. There must be some other thing that God's trying to communicate from the flood account other than God flooded the whole earth to destroy wicked people. Right, that'd be, that would be the take of, of, of many viewpoints.

In fact, it is the dominant viewpoint. What, what we're proposing here at Cornerstone, what Pastor Milton is teaching, the approach that he's taking to Genesis right now as we speak is the minority viewpoint. So I hope you guys realize that. If you try to go out and send your kids to college, try to find out what their science programs teach, where they, where they land on these issues.

They're going to tell you. That they're going to reject a young Earth creation viewpoint because they cannot be taken academically serious if they hold that viewpoint. In fact, there's a, a friend of mine who is, he's a, he's, he's a scientist. He works in these fields.

he is a young Earth creationist, but when he goes out to speak, they tell him in no uncertain terms, do not let the venues that you speak at advertise you as a young Earth creationist or we will let you go. Because it would bring too much of a bad reputation upon their institution. That's, that's, that's, that's the way people feel about this stuff. So we're in the minority, here at Cornerstone.

I'm not saying we're as if all of you guys agree with me. I'm saying what you've heard from this pulpit is the minority position. let's talk about what is progressive creation. OK, this is popularized by Hugh Ross.

He's, he's a pretty, pretty well-known guy. raise your hand if you've heard of Hugh Ross. OK, yeah, so he's pretty well known. He's been a, a big proponent.

In fact, he's the one who has, developed, progressive creationism, and the organization Reason to Believe and supported by several Christian leaders. Recently, A recent data, or let me see. Relatively recent idea that seeks to embrace the Big Bang is the origin of the universe and allow for the geological evolution of the Earth but rejects biological evolution of the Earth. So yes, the Big Bang.

Yes, geological evolution, so when we look at the rocks and things like that, the earth really is as old as it seems to be, but this view rejects molecules to man evolution. All right? We didn't just come from molecules to slime, to lizards, to apes, to man. OK?

So heros rejects that. Suggests that God created life in spurts and allowed many species to go extinct and then to be recreated in slightly different forms over billions of years. So this is a very interesting theory. The, the way that Hugh Ross explains what seems to be evolution, according to some in the fossil record, is that you have one species that lives for, who knows, hundreds, thousands of years, but then it goes extinct.

And then God comes in and he makes a brand new special creation of an animal that's like the animal that went extinct, but just a little bit different. And so then that animal may live for hundreds and thousands of years, and then that animal goes extinct. And God creates a new creature that looks a little bit different from that one. And so the reason that we seem to see biological evolution is because God is recreating many times again after species go extinct.

Does that make sense? So, so if you see a, look, like if you remember your evolution biology textbooks where you see a little horse, right? And then over millions of years, it, it evolves into a bigger horse and then you have a Cloudsdale, right? In, in, in this view, in the progressive creation view, the little horse doesn't biologically develop into the next horse necessarily.

It goes extinct. And then God recreates something that looks a lot diff a lot like it, but it's, but it's a little bit different and so on. And so, that's how you have the development of the species is this constant recreation. That's why it's called progressive creationism, right?

Overlapping periods of time, God's always recreating species. the days of creation were actually long overlapping periods of time during which God created different forms of life. So again, think of, think of a big rainbow for day one. So in Hugh Ross's view, we've got, millions of years for day one, but it's not, it's not exclusive of day two.

Day two is somewhere in the middle of day one. And then you have this big rainbow of day two. But then day 3 is somewhere in the middle of day 2. And so you have these, these rainbows that are overlapping each other, millions of years, and God is, is always like creating new species.

He's like an artist. Who's looking at his canvas and then decides, I'm gonna He's almost like George Lucas. how George Lucas creates Star Wars, right? Back in the 70s, but then when they come to put it out on DVD, he just decides, I'm gonna put a lot of CGI right in the middle of this movie.

And, and, and he just, he just creates just new features within Star Wars. That's what God has done, is God's created things. But then as he's looking at it, he's like, OK, I really like the way things are now, but now I'm gonna add another creature. And then millions of years go by and he's like, OK, I like the way things are cool, but, so God is just a very creative God.

He's not limited to just the 1st 6 days. He's just always creating these new things, thing. OK, proponents of this view consider nature to be the sixty-seventh book of the Bible. Underline that, circle it, memorize it.

This is the key to the progressive revolut creation viewpoint. Sixty-seventh book of the Bible. Nature is the sixty-seventh book of the Bible, and, and they look to that book to teach them about human origins and the history of the earth and universe. I'm gonna show you guys, not this morning, I'm gonna show you guys a video on the future.

That has I believe it has Hugh Ross and it has like a gap theorist and a number of different people. It has even like RC Sproul and then RC Sproul's son, which has a diametrically opposed view from his father. You may know RC Sproll Junior believes in what? These young Earth creationists and so it has all these people on the platform giving their viewpoints.

What's fascinating is every one of them is just very straightforward with their presuppositions, which I, I love debates like that where you, you can actually debate the real issues because everybody is just like this is exactly what my presuppositions are and they're all the things that we've stated in this class. And so, all that to say that, when Hugh Ross gets up to talk, he's just very straightforward. He just says nature is the sixty-seventh book of the Bible. And that we need to look at the Bible and see what the Bible says, but then we need to look at the sixty-seventh book of the Bible, which in his mind is science and nature.

And we need to make sure that however we're interpreting this, it matches with what we're seeing here. And if what we're seeing here contradicts this, Which one gives way in Hugh Ross's viewpoint? Yeah, a lot of times the sixty-seventh book of the Bible reinterprets the 66 books of the Bible, although he wouldn't say it exactly like that. But in his mind, if it, if it can be verified that the 67th book of the Bible is proving something and it contradicts a previously understood interpretation of the 66 books, then we need to alter our understanding of the 66 books of the Bible.

The thing I do appreciate about Hugh Ross is that he's very straightforward with what we would call, when I was going to seminary, we call that the two-book theory. The two-book theory. It's basically the idea that special revelation and general revelation have the same amount of authority. Right, let me say it again.

Special revelation and general revelation have the same amount of authority. That's the two-book theory. That's what Hugh Ross supports. somewhat.

the rock layers, this is another component of progressive creation. The rock layers contain a record of the history of life on Earth, including pre-humans who did not have a spirit. This is a huge component of progressive creationism. You have pre-humans who do not have a spirit.

Yet they strongly resemble modern humans. The rocks also contain evidence of death, disease, and suffering. the flood was a local event that is referred to as universal because it impacted all humans on the earth at the time. The only reason it's called universal is because everybody that was alive at the time was affected.

It's not that it really covered the whole earth or underneath the whole sky of heaven or anything like that. OK. Let's watch. A video.

I'd like you to take some notes if you could. And this is gonna Click as soon as I go, right? For the video? OK, 2 clicks.

OK. So now we're gonna, we're gonna look at a a professor who differs with Hugh Ross and he's gonna explain what he believes is wrong with progressive creationism. Let's take a look at this. What's creation Well, to answer that question, the first thing we have to do is define what we mean by progressive creation.

To start with, they believe that nature is like the sixty-seventh book of the Bible. And it is as reliable as the word of God is. On the basis of that assumption, they accept the Big Bang for millions of years, believe that that God created different creatures. Every so often over Except that there Fear of death Believed that they were pre-Adamite, soulless creatures that looked like humans but didn't have a soul, and they That Noah's flood was a local flood in the Mesopotamian Valley.

Let's look at those ideas just briefly. Is nature the sixty-seventh book of the Bible? No, it is not. The Bible is the divinely inspired, inerrant, holy word of God.

It is propositional truth, creation on the other. Is create But to So the Bible reveals that creation speaks to us about the. Some of the attributes of God, but it doesn't tell us. Got a history of the Just by looking We cannot trust what sinful scientists.

who are using Biblical assumptions to interpret the cursed creation. Cannot trust their interpret And use that to inter Rather, we use the Bible to interpret the world. What about the Big Bang? Events in the Absolutely In Genesis just for one example, the Genesis account says that God created the Earth before the sun, moon, and stars.

The evolutionists say exactly the opposite. And the days are clearly not overlapping. God says 1st day, 2nd day, 3rd day, 4th day. And the days were completed.

There was mourning one day Morning, the second day. What about death before, the fall? Well, 6 times God says it was good in Genesis 1. At the end he says, it was very good.

He tells us that the animals and the people were vegetarians at the end of Genesis 1. The judgment in Genesis 3 brought a curse on the whole creation, on the animals. on the ground, the evolutionists say there are thorns in rock layers. They tell us that there are dinosaur bones with cancer in them.

If those millions of years are true, then God lied. What about soulless pre-Adamite people? Well, the Bible doesn't speak about such creatures, and there's no scientific evidence because the soul is not preserved in the fossil record. So there's no way you can look at a, skeleton that looks like a human being and say that it didn't have a soul.

What about a local fly? There's lots of evidence in Genesis that this was a global flood. The purpose of the flood was to destroy all of the people, but also all of the animals. Birds, not And the earth itself, Genesis 6 tells us.

The purpose of the ark was to save animals and birds and people. If the flood was local, the ark was totally unnecessary. The depth of the flood shows that it was global. The water rose above.

Mountains Genesis 7 tells us. Rainbow promise in Genesis 9 tells us that God promised never to send another flood. Promise to the animals, to the birds, and the earth itself, not just to Noah. Jesus said, as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be with the coming of the Son of Man.

That flood was global. It affected the whole. Jesus coming and judgment will. OK, good.

I'll try to send you guys that video I was talking about earlier where you have everybody on the panel discussing their viewpoints. I appreciate the fact that we That we have people today that are engaging in this debate. well, as we said earlier, there are, these are the Christian views that are out there. Whose view is, is, is the young earth view dominant or the minority position?

It is the minority position. It has been growing since 1970s, the 1970s, but it is still the minority position. Much, much to the consternation of many people actually around the world, there are many people that just can't believe that Young Earth creation is still even alive. What a lot of people don't realize is it was dead before the 1970s.

From an academic viewpoint, nobody believed it until Henry Morris began to do his work. And other scientists jumped on board and said we have similar concerns. As we look at the Bible and as we look at the science, we're having the same type of concerns and it's been a growing movement ever since. OK, let's talk about one issue in that video and then we've got to move, we've got to wrap things up., the professor brings up a very interesting point.

According to the progressive creation theory, you have the 67th book of the Bible, and they argue that we have pre-adamic, creatures because according to Hugh Ross, it's, it's been proven that we have Neanderthals. We have skeletons that prove that we have intermediate stages between apes and humans. And so, in order to accommodate what the Bible is saying to science, he argues that you have hominids that eventually evolve, right? or eventually evolve into humans or there's a special creation of man, depending on your version.

But these are soulless creatures. So from a biblical standpoint, can we demonstrate from the Bible that we have pre-adamic creatures that are soulless? Is there anything in the Bible that would prove that? No, and so it's not coming from the 67 books of the Bible.

Let's look at the sixty-seventh book of the Bible. Is there anything from a scientific viewpoint that could demonstrate that these hominids are soulless? No, because we're, it's a metaphysical question. And so you're talking, when you're talking about soulless creatures, the scientists, somebody who's not even a Christian who could care less about this issue, would look at Hugh Ross and say, we could care less whether they have souls or not.

That's totally unimportant. You're not proving anything to us by arguing that they're soulless creatures. And Hugh Ross comes along and says they're soulless creatures, to the Christians. and yet there's no biblical evidence for it.

So what is he really accomplishing? What is he trying to accomplish? He's trying to accom to bridge the gap between the sixty-seventh and sixty-sixth book of the Bible by using a metaphysical argument to try to bridge the gap. Is this science?

Is this biblical interpretation? No, this is a philosophical argument. OK. It's a philosophical argument to try to bridge the gap between the sixty-seventh and sixty-seventh book of the Bible.

And so, oh, there we go. We're gonna come back to Mark next week. Let me, let me finish with a couple applications. Let's see.

Sorry. OK, here we go. OK, so as we look at what Jesus and Paul says about these issues, we're gonna have to hit those text scripture next week. But does Jesus or Paul attack belief, a belief in a young earth or attach it to the proclamation of the gospel?

As we look at the Bible, is there some direct attachment between what we would call the young Earth creation viewpoint and the gospel? Answer, I'll just give you guys the answer. No. And so in light of that, the point of looking at these passages that we don't have time for, we're gonna look at next week, is to remind us that salvation from our sins comes through repentance and faith, not in a certain belief and origins.

We're not questioning the salvation of you, Ross, not questioning the salvation of people that believe in the gap theory or Thomas Chalmers. I'm sure Thomas Chalmers is up in heaven with the Lord, and he now has a very good understanding of creation. We must take care not to judge the salvation of others based on what we would call secondary issues. We are called to examine the fruit of one another's lives and exhort one another to trust in sound doctrine.

This is a quote straight from our curriculum. While this issue is not a salvation issue, it is an issue of authority. If someone openly rejects the authority of the Bible on issues like the historicity of Adam and Eve, which people clearly do, or blends the ideas of evolution together with scripture, there is reason for concern. If we don't believe God's words, God's word beginning in Genesis, then when do we start believing, then when do we start believing it?

If this history in Genesis is not reliable, then how do we know the gospel based on that history is reliable? This is a very important point. And this is where, this is why this debate needs to happen. Because on the, on the one hand, while I would never question Hugh Ross's salvation.

The way he's approaching Genesis is of concern to me. cause the way he's approaching the text, he's bringing hermeneutical approach to the text that if applied in other places in the Bible, and it does get applied that way in other places in the Bible, it could lead to the demise of the gospel. Does Thomas Chalmers is as Hugh Ross intending to undercut the gospel? Not at all.

Does Hugh Ross, believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ that and justification by faith alone? He absolutely does. The concern and why we're having this debate today is on the one hand, Hugh Ross says this, and you can appreciate it if he's right from his viewpoint, it's a valid argument. He Ross says this, is that this side over here, young youth creationism is making Christians look so foolish that nobody's gonna believe the gospel because they think we're a bunch of country bumpkins.

We've got to get up with the times for people to receive the gospel. So his concern is the gospel. And if we, if, if we keep looking like country bumpkins when it comes to science, we're not going to be taken seriously. On the other side, People on this, in this camp, like, people down at the Master's College, for instance, would say, The, the problem is, is that Hugh Ross is, is giving us an approach to scripture that if we apply it, if we take that approach in Genesis and apply it across the board like many people are beginning to do, we're going to lose the whole kit and caboodle.

And so we need to continue to have this debate in church history, every period of church history, there are head bumps that happen while people are looking at the Bible and trying to figure out what we should believe. In the early church, people were just bumping their heads over the doctrine of Christ. People were bumping their heads over the deity of Christ. People were bumping their heads later about the doctrine of scripture.

Over the last about 200 years or so, we've been really bumping our heads over eschatology and ecclesiology, and it needs to happen. And since the 1970s, we've been bumping our heads over this issue of creation. Not because it's a salvation issue, but because it's an important issue. And, and we need to continue to debate, we need to continue to speak the truth in love.

this is an issue of authority and the extent to which we will use the Bible to inform our thinking about the world, that, that is the significance of the issue. What will be the authority in your life? OK. So we'll go ahead and turn this off.

We're gonna get back to that later. Let me give you one final application we're gonna pray. As the staff was sitting down and trying to figure out and praying about what book to go into, we've been talking about Genesis for a long time. And, and one of the reasons why we wanted to get into Genesis is because the book of Genesis is an issue that Christians are divided on.

And it's a, it's a book that quite honestly, people here at Cornerstone are divided on. And so, how do we achieve unity biblically? Do we achieve unity by ignoring issues and just pretending like everybody is unified? Or do we achieve unity by teaching through the Bible and trying to figure out what are the outer edges of our unity?

And that's what we've determined to do. We've decided, Pastor Milton picked up the text and has been preaching verse by verse through Genesis in order to help us come to more unity on what we understand the Bible to actually teach. And I'll tell you what, we set this out the gate in our staff meetings. As we're approaching the text, if the Bible were to lead us to a viewpoint like Thomas Chalmers, Hugh Ross, or anybody else, that's where we're gonna go.

If that's what we can prove from the Bible, that is exactly where we're gonna go. But if the Bible is affirming a particular viewpoint, that is where we're gonna go. I'll tell you what Pastor Milton has done. I have a lot of respect for him in this.

Pastor Milton has tons of commentaries, tons of information, not just from his own viewpoint. He's not just reading stuff from a young Earth creation viewpoint. He's got commentaries from Hugh Ross. He's got commentaries from people of all different shades and colors.

In fact, Pastor Milton has been actually honestly looking hard. As he's studying Genesis, looking hard for a quote from Hugh Ross that he can throw up on the screen on Sunday to try to demonstrate that, hey, I'm trying to play fair here. I'm, I'm trying to be unbiased as possible. I want people to know that I'm reading all kinds of material.

The challenge is, while Hugh Ross may be, and I, he is a very good scientist. He's an excellent scientist. Pastor Milton has looked and looked and looked for a good quote of his handling of the text to throw up on a Sunday, and does anybody remember to this point, Pastor Milton quoting from Hugh Ross? No, we haven't.

Why? Because his handling, his handling of science in the sixty-seventh book of the Bible may be fantastic, but his handling of the text has not been fantastic is what we're finding. and, but I'll tell you what, if Hugh Ross and, and, and, and Pastor Milton, he's a guy that I have a lot of respect for his integrity and his willingness to change his viewpoint if he can, if he can be proven, just like with the head covering issue we were talking about earlier, we were completely on one side, but the text moved us to a complete other side.

We studied issues like tongues and prophecy, and we're, and, and we're trying to figure out where does the Lord wants to go on these issues.

And if Hugh Ross and others can make their case from the text. I'll tell you what, Pastor Milton will be the first one to get up here and quote from Hugh Ross and say, this is the way we need to understand the text. And up to this point, I'm not saying it's not gonna happen in the future, up to this point, we have not been able to find a quote that we can pull from to say this is a great handling of the text on this issue. So pray for Pastor Milton, pray for us.

We want to come to more unity as a church on these issues. Salvation issues, no. Important issues, yes. And we're teaching through the text of Genesis because we believe that God has a message for God's people today through this book, as we read through it in a straightforward way.

So pray for Pastor Milton, pray for the staff, pray for the elders. And let's, let's all follow the Lord as we study the text together. Let's pray. I'll be up here for questions afterwards.

Lord, we thank you so much that as that you have given us your word. We thank you that we live in a day where it seems that your church is vastly more mature than it used to be in ages past, where we can discuss and debate and speak the truth and love over issues without killing each other. We thank you, Lord, that we don't live in those times. Back in the Reformation, pre-Reformation period, where if you held an Anabaptist position, for instance, you'd get slaughtered by the Protestants or you'd be slaughtered by the Catholics.

Thank you, Lord, that we can speak the truth and love, try to approach the text the best we can, and to let the chips fall, just trusting in your sovereignty to guide your church. And we thank you that as we look at revelation, it is, it is guaranteed that you will win, that your kingdom will spread, regardless of how things come down on this issue. Jesus Christ is Lord of all and every knee will bow. but we pray, Father, that as we're moving from here to there to try to get to that mature man.

That we would all embrace your word, that we would just really be able to challenge each other in love, and that we would find true unity which comes from discussing scripture, not from avoiding it. And we just thank you for this time that we could be together in Christ's name we pray and all God's people said, Amen.