Skip to content

What else is at stake in Creationism?

July 7, 2009

This post is a follow up to my last post so I can expand a little bit more on the topic of creation and what is lost if we reject or compromise a literal six day creationism. This will not be a full exploration of these topics, but just a quick glance at some things that are well worth you exploring further on your own. Besides the deity of Christ and certainty of our salvation, several things are undermined by departing from a literal understaning of Genesis 1 and 2. Denying creation immediately undermines the truth of the entire Bible. If we cannot accept as accurate and dependable the opening statements of Scripture, what can we accept as accurate? If the beginning paragraphs of the Bible are nothing more than poetic descriptions what is the rest of the Bible? When we compromise or deny a literal creation, we immediately remove the reliability of the Bible when it speaks to any other area. Because the reliability of the Bible is undercut, our knowledge of salvation and God is compromised.

Salvation is compromised when we deny a literal creation because it removes original sin and the curse of sin. If we allow for epochs prior to Adam’s sin, we allow for a world filled with death before sin. Genesis 3 makes very plain that one part of the curse of sin was death. I have heard some say that the death talked about in Genesis is only spiritual death. What then about the rest of the curses? Were there no thorns in the epochs before Adam? The science that demands epochs also finds multi-million year old thorns. Were serpents legged before Adam? Again, evolutionary science discovers snakes far back in the fossil record. Though I freely admit the spiritual death of separation from God is by far the most significant element of the curse, there are other parts. If I accept evolutionary theory, I am suddenly left with a multi-faceted curse that is actually not multi-faceted at all. This begs the question, then, if thorns aren’t a result of sin, if legless snakes aren’t a result of sin, if drudgery and toil are not a result of sin, if pain in child birth are not a result of sin, if everything else in the curse is not actually a result of sin, how then do I know death is a result of sin? Any compromise of creation immediately compromises the effects of sin on man and the world. What then about the promise to Adam and Eve to send a Savior? Is the crushed head and bruised heel meaningless? If everything else in Genesis 1-3 is mere symbol or poetry, then the whole account of sin and sacrifice becomes meaningless. Suddenly, I don’t know if I need a Savior or not.

Our knowledge of God is severely compromised if we remove or explain away Creation. The accounts of creation convey incredible displays of power and majesty. The thought of a single being creating every thing out of nothing is so incredible we can not begin to fully appreciate its magnitude or magnificence. The desire to explain creation away because popular scientific thought does not agree opens the door wide to explain away the other magnificent things about God that are not currently acceptable or understandable. God’s holiness is infinite and inconceivable. God’s holiness is also incredibly unpopular. Can we turn the statements of God’s holiness into poetry or moral tales? Can we then turn away from the resultant commands for Christians to be holy? Where does the poetry end and the objective commands begin? If we throw creation in the trash can of symbolism, we throw with it the other objective revelations of God, leaving us with a God that could be anything from your favorite sock to a large black woman living in a shack in the mountains.

Creation is foundational to the rest of Scriptures, remove the foundations and the whole structure collapses. We cannot compromise in this area, the certainty of our whole faith rests upon it. Without a literal understanding of creation, we cannot reasonably come to a literal understanding of sin, salvation or even God Himself.


Comments are closed.