I’ve seen several posts recently on the subject of creation, evolution, and the age of the earth. If you missed them and are interested in these kinds of discussions, you may want to give them a read.

• Do you believe God created the earth in six literal 24-hour days? by Randy Alcorn
• Why I’m Not a Creationist (Anymore), by Josh Sowin
• Why I’m Neither a Creationist Nor an Evolutionist, by Collin Brendemuehl
• Why I Am a Middle-Aged Young/Old-Earth Creationist, by David T. Koyzis

(See below for some related videos and conferences.)

I grew up believing that God created the universe out of nothing in six 24-hour days and that the earth was about 6,000 years old. My first real exposure to opposing Christian viewpoints was in Systematic Theology I in seminary, where we used Millard Erickson’s Christian Theology¹ as our main textbook.

The Age of Creation

Erickson presents five views on the age of creation:

1. Gap Theory: God first created the earth millions or billions of years ago (Gen 1:1), it was destroyed by a catastrophe (Gen 1:2), and then God created a second time around 6,000 years ago (406).
2. Flood Theory: God created the universe about 6,000 year ago and then sent a worldwide flood about 1,656² years later (Gen 6–8); the flood caused great upheaval and accounts for the apparent age of the earth (406).
3. Ideal-Time Theory: God created a mature earth that had the appearance of age: a solar system and the light emanating from it, plant life ready to be eaten, animals in their full-grown state, and Adam and Eve as adults; everything had the appearance of age, even when it was really only seconds old (406–07).
4. Age-Day Theory: The six days of creation were not 24-hour periods but perhaps millions of years each (407).
5. Pictorial-Day (or Literary-Framework) Theory: The days of creation are arranged by the author of Genesis (or by God Himself in revealing them to man) primarily logically rather than chronologically (407).

Erickson is inclined toward the age-day theory.

Development within Creation

He then presents three views on the issue of development within creation:

1. Traditional Creationism: Every species was created directly by God during the first six days of the existence of the earth (408–09).
2. Theistic Evolution: The universe had its origin in a creative work of God, but God used the process of evolution to indirectly bring about the various species; He may or may not have been directly involved in the creation of human beings (409).
3. Progressive Creationism: “God created in a series of acts over a long period of time” (409).

Erickson favors progressive creationism.

Is God Deceptive?

I’ve had several discussions with friends who reject a young-earth position, but I presently hold to a combination of the flood theory and the ideal-time theory for the simple reason that I’ve never read or heard compelling argumentation to make me reassess my views.

The biggest objection that I hear raised against the notion that the earth was created with the appearance of age is that it is inconsistent with God’s character as a God of truth. Erickson puts it this way:

The ideal-time theory is ingenious and in many ways irrefutable both scientifically and exegetically, but presents the theological problem that it makes God an apparent deceiver (and deception, as we saw in Chapter 13, is contrary to his nature). (407–08, emphasis added)

But I don’t find the objection very compelling for at least three reasons.

1. The argument works against every position that holds that God created anything directly and out of nothing. No matter what your view, everything God created had the appearance of age the moment it was created, and it doesn’t matter if that apparent age was millennia, years, or even days. If it appeared older than it actually was, according this this logic, God’s character would be called into question.
2. Everything that was first created is fundamentally different from everything that followed it. A human being created directly by God out of nothing can not be held to the standard of a human being who is born by procreation. What would it look like to create a man that didn’t have the appearance of age? Create a baby? Even a newborn has the appearance of being roughly nine months old. It’s difficult to fathom what creating without the appearance of age would look like.
3. God is not accountable to man for how He chose to create His universe. He’s free to create a star that’s billions of light years away and also create the light emanating from it without our needing to think that He did something shady.

If you don’t believe in a young earth or are convinced that God used evolution to bring about the species that we have today, what were the arguments, facts, or resources that led you to your conclusion. I’m especially interested in hearing from those who’ve abandoned young-earth creationism.

Piper on Creation and the Age of the Earth

I just saw a post in Google Reader from Chris Roberts, where he points out a couple of short videos by John Piper on these issues. They’re both worth watching. I’m embedding them below for your convenience.

Creation Conferences

On a related note, there are a couple of conferences dealing with creation coming up:

• Science & Faith: Friends or Foes? (HT: Justin Taylor)
• Creation 2010: The Battle for the Bible (HT: ChristianNewsWire)

Footnotes

1. Available from Amazon and Logos. ↩
2. I arrived at this number by adding up the numbers in Gen 5 from Adam’s birth until Methuselah’s death (130+105+90+70+65+162+65+969=1,656). According to Gen 7:11, Noah was 600 when the flood began, and Gen 5:25 and 28 indicate that Methuselah was 369 years old when Noah was born. That would put Methuselah’s death, Noah’s 600th birthday, and the flood all in the same year. ↩

Tullian Tchividjian articulates beautifully one of the most transforming truths I’ve ever learned: the gospel is central in the daily life of the believer. It is well worth 2 minutes and 25 seconds of your time.

Tullian will be speaking on this subject at the upcoming Association of Biblical Counselors annual conference, whose theme is The Gospel Revolution: Re-Discovering the Power of the Cross.

I personally owe a great debt to Dr. Michael P. V. Barrett, who through his teaching, writing (esp. Beginning at Moses: A Guide to Finding Christ in the Old Testament and Complete in Him: A Guide to Understanding and Enjoying the Gospel), and preaching was God’s instrument in opening my eyes to this crucial and scarcely known truth (at least in my experience), and to Faith Free Presbyterian Church for their gospel-centered preaching and worship.

HT: Dane Ortlund via Andy Naselli

A few weeks ago, my wife and I watched Dispatches from the Front: Islands on the Edge, the first in a series of DVDs from Frontline Missions. It was edifying, educational, powerful, and moving—well worth the 50 minutes we spent watching it. I highly recommend it. But consider yourself forewarned: it may start some discussions about quitting your job(s) and moving to a foreign country—or at least evaluating your praying for and giving to foreign missions.

Here’s the description of the series:

Believers everywhere desperately need a renewed vision of Christ and the unstoppable advance of His saving work in all the earth. Often our view of God’s Kingdom is too small and limited to what we have experienced. Dispatches from the Front provides a rare glimpse into this work, highlighting the marvelous extent, diversity, and unity of Christ’s Kingdom in our world. The journal format of each episode underscores the daily unfolding of God’s activity on the “frontlines,” bringing viewers up-close with sights and sounds from distant corners of the Kingdom.

A pioneer missionary once wrote, “Some want to live within the sound of church or chapel bell; I want to run a rescue shop within a yard of Hell.” Episode 1: Islands on the Edge takes you to parts of southeast Asia where there are no church buildings or chapel bells, yet the Gospel is advancing in the face of persecution, desperate poverty, and Asia’s secret slave trade. Here is an inside look at the radical rescue work of the Gospel on the frontier of human need.

Mark Hansen describes the goal of Dispatches from the Front this way:

The vision behind this series is to produce a media resource which helps pastors expose their congregations to the Gospel’s advance in some of the hardest places of our world today and to awaken the church to the glory of Christ and His agenda.

If the forthcoming episodes are anything like the first, this is sure to be a series you’ll want to have in your church and home libraries. Watch it with your church, your Sunday school class, your small group, your family, and you’ll be moved (Mt 9:36; 14:14; Mk 6:34).

You can purchase a copy for $15 online via PayPal or by calling 864-451-5550.

Here’s the trailer:

Read more from Frontline Missions, Matthew Hoskinson, and Abraham Piper, who will be giving giving away five free copies today.

A friend notified me today about a “Christian” website where “Christians” illegally share a variety of forms of digital Christian content—from Christian music to Christian movies to Christian software. Scores of people, many of whom are in seminary training for pastoral ministry, post pirated Bible software on the web and invite others to download it, giving detailed instructions on how to unlock the software and bypass the security features. I’m blown away by how easily “Christians” can steal in order to enable them to have access to biblical resources.¹ Something about that just doesn’t make sense. But that’s what sin does to us. It causes us to act in utterly irrational ways.

Take, for example, how one seminary student responds to another who shared stolen software with him: “God Bless You!” Another individual has this in his signature: “Live Hard, Play hard and let your life show WHO u live for.” Hmm. Another has a link to his website, “What Would Jesus Download,” in his signature. Good question indeed. Perhaps those downloading pirated software should ponder it a bit.

The point of this post isn’t to point the finger at others in a condescending fashion. I recall the wise counsel of Jonathan Edwards, who in his eighth resolution said,

Resolved, to act, in all respects, both speaking and doing, as if nobody had been so vile as I, and as if I had committed the same sins, or had the same infirmities or failings as others; and that I will let the knowledge of their failings promote nothing but shame in myself, and prove only an occasion of my confessing my own sins and misery to God.

So I use this as an opportunity to search my own heart and ask God to reveal how I might be covering sin. I pray the prayer of David, both for myself and for those who use this “Christian” site.

Search me, O God, and know my heart!
Try me and know my thoughts!
And see if there be any grievous way in me,
and lead me in the way everlasting! —Ps 139:23–24

Sin is a deceitful (Heb 3:13) and blinding (2 Pet 1:7) poison. How easy it is for our sinful hearts to justify what God abhors. May God graciously shine the light of His holy Word upon us and grant us the gift of repentance.

Footnotes

1. I’d image that most of these individuals wouldn’t walk into a Christian bookstore and steal content off of the shelves. The fact that downloadable media and software is intangible makes it much easier to justify. ↩

I bought The Nativity Story for my parents for Christmas (along with Planet Earth and Blue Planet) and remembered that I had never posted about it here. Shanna and I watched it last spring when it first came out on DVD. It’s not fresh on my mind, so I can’t give a detailed review, but I do remember enough to know that I enjoyed it and would recommend it.

It was very faithful to the biblical accounts. While I wasn’t convinced that all of the ways they acted out the story were the best, those issues were minor and their interpretations were generally within the bounds of viable options. I was initially disappointed with how abruptly the movie came to an end, but then I remembered that it was a movie about Jesus’ birth, not His life. Though The Nativity Story isn’t my favorite biblical movie, it is one that I would recommend and will probably watch again.

Other Reviews:

• Peter T. Chattaway’s review at ChrsitianityToday.com
• Al Mohler’s review at AlbertMohler.com
• David DiCerto’s review at CatholicNews.com
• Dale Mason’s review at AnswersinGenesis.org
• Steven Isaac’s review at PluggedinOnline.com

Michael O. Sajbel, dir. One Night with the King. 20th Century Fox, 2006. 124 min. PG

Shanna and I watched One Night with the King last night and were incredibly (!) disappointed. We had just finished reading Esther in our Bible reading, so the story was fresh on our minds. We were expecting the movie to tell faithfully the story of Esther. Not so. Probably only 25% of the movie corresponds to the biblical account. I’m not talking about just filling in the details. I’m talking about totally scrapping the biblical story, picking up a handful of those scraps, and then putting them back together in such a way that they are virtually unrecognizable. Well, maybe that’s a little overstatement, but you get my point. Over and over throughout the movie, we’d stop and say, “What?! That’s not how that happened! Why did they change that?” Not quite The Gospel of John! (More like The Ten Commandments.) It wasn’t until the end that we learned that the movie wasn’t supposed to be retelling the biblical story of Esther but the fictional story of the novel Hadassah: One Night with the King. (I vaguely remember reading that, but had forgotten.) Knowing that up front would probably have helped significantly.

Apart from our disappointment with the storyline, the quality of the movie left much to be desired. I’m not sure whether cheesy or goofy is the better descriptor. Esther acted like a silly, giggly little girl. We erupted with laughter on numerous occasions throughout, and I’m fairly certain that, for most of them, the humor we saw wasn’t intended.

For all of the not-so-positive things I’ve said, I wouldn’t necessarily recommend you not watch it. Even in spite of our disappointments, it was mildly enjoyable and helped to bring the Bible to life (at least the portions of the film that followed the biblical story). As long as your expectations for faithfulness to the biblical account are low and you’re ready to laugh a bit at some goofiness, you should be able to watch it with some enjoyment and profit. But you may want to wait until you can get it from your local library.

See also these reviews:

• Michael Haykin loved it.
  
• Andy Naselli hated it.