ChristianAudio.com offers by The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Fifty Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die by John Piper for free this month. Use coupon code MAR2010 for the first and MAR2010B for the second. You’ll have to place two separate orders since you can’t use two coupon codes at the same time.

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. ↩

I follow Mark Driscoll on Twitter and just watched a little 4:27 video that he tweeted about: “Song of Solomon Q&A 3.” I’ve embedded it below.

It contains some solid practical advice for troubled marriages. On the whole, it’s good stuff.

Two items caught my attention—particularly because of how they seem to be at odds with things John Piper teaches:

1. “If [love is] commanded, that means it’s not a feeling.”
2. “God couldn’t command you to do something that was impossible for you to do.”

Here’s a transcript of the relevant portion with the key parts in bold:

Do you know that love is commanded in the Bible? If it’s commanded, that means it’s not a feeling. You ever thought about that? See, we live in this day when—”I don’t feel like I’m in love.” Well, the Bible says, “Husbands,” Ephesians 5—what?—”love your wives.” Titus 2 says that older women should train younger women to love their husbands. If it’s commanded, it’s possible. You say, “But, I can’t love them. I don’t feel like I love them.” The love doesn’t begin with you. God is love, 1 John 4 says. God’s love comes to you to love your spouse. The great lie is, I don’t love you so we shouldn’t be married. The answer is, you need to get closer to Jesus, and you’ll have all the love you need. God couldn’t command you to do something that was impossible for you to do. He couldn’t tell you to love someone if he wasn’t willing to give you the love to love them.

Love Is Not a Feeling.

On the first point, I wonder if Mark simply meant that love is not exclusively a feeling. I’m inclined to think so, but the words themselves struck me as being the very kind of thinking that Piper takes such great pains to refute in Desiring God (and elsewhere):

One thing is for sure: Love cannot be equated with sacrificial action! It cannot be equated with any action! This is a powerful antidote to the common teaching that love is not what you feel, but what you do. The good in this popular teaching is the twofold intention to show (1) that mere warm feelings can never replace actual deeds of love (James 2:16; 1 John 3:18) and (2) that efforts of love must be made even in the absence of the joy that one might wish were present. But it is careless and inaccurate to support these two truths by saying that love is simply what you do, and not what you feel. . . .

The very definition of love in 1 Corinthians refutes this narrow conception of love. For example, Paul says love is not jealous and not easily provoked and that it rejoices in the truth and hopes all things (13:4–7). All these are feelings! If you feel things like unholy jealousy and irritation, you are not loving. And if you do not feel things like joy in the truth and hope, you are not loving. In other words, yes, love is more than feelings; but, no, love is not less than feelings. (116–17)

Even if Mark believes that love is not exclusively a feeling, his conditional statement “If it’s commanded, that means it’s not a feeling” is logically flawed. There are plenty of commands in the Bible that deal with our feelings. Again, Piper comments,

Positively, Christians are commanded to have God-honoring feelings. We are commanded to feel joy (Philippians 4:4), hope (Psalm 42:5), fear (Luke 12:5), peace (Colossians 3:15), zeal (Romans 12:11), grief (Romans 12:15), desire (1 Peter 2:2), tenderheartedness (Ephesians 4:32), and brokenness and contrition (James 4:9). (Desiring God, 89)

While I’m not completely sure of Driscoll’s view on love as an emotion, my gut feeling is that there probably is no real disagreement between Driscoll and Piper on this point. I do wonder, though, if all of Driscoll’s listeners walked away with the understanding that love is both volition and feeling and that God often does command us to feel certain things.

God Doesn’t Command What We Can’t Do.

I’m nearly positive that Driscoll would disagree with the notion that God’s commands are possible for unbelievers. This is precisely the logic of Pelagianism—and a large segment of the church today: God wouldn’t tell people to do something they have absolutely no power to do, so God’s commands may be taken as indications of man’s abilities.

In this video Driscoll is dealing with believers, not unbelievers. But is it true that “God couldn’t command you to do something that was impossible for you to do”?

When I heard these words, my mind immediately went to Piper’s treatment of Hebrews 6:3. Here are some selections from Piper’s sermon on Hebrews 6:1–3, “Let Us Press On to Maturity”:

1. God governs the progress of sanctification (or maturity).

In other words, he has final say in whether we overcome our bent to sinning and make progress toward maturity. We will press on to maturity if God permits it. That is, we will make progress in our sanctification and holiness if God permits it. He decides ultimately if and how fast we advance in holiness.

. . .

3. God sometimes wills that something come to pass which he forbids us to bring to pass.

That is, he sometimes decrees what he forbids. In this case, for example, he may not permit someone to press on to maturity. Nevertheless he commands us to press on to maturity. So he is decreeing immaturity while commanding maturity.

If Piper rightly understands Hebrews 6:3—and I think he does—it would seem, then, that God can and does command believers to do things that are at times impossible for them to do (i.e., by virtue of His decree, that is, His unwillingness to enable us to do them).

Does anyone know if Driscoll deals with either of these two issues in more detail elsewhere? I’m curious to know if he agrees with Piper and, if not, how he would interact with Piper’s teaching on these points.

I read an endorsement recently that really grabbed my attention. A well-known individual described a book that is not very well known in these terms:

This book is much better than any other book in the world, excepting the Bible, in my opinion.

The individual was Jonathan Edwards.

The book was Peter Van Mastricht’s A Treatise on Regeneration, which was published by Soli Deo Gloria, now a part of Reformation Heritage Books.

Wow! I want to read that book. I wonder how it compares with John Piper’s Finally Alive.

Here’s the description of A Treatise on Regeneration from Monergism:

Jesus said that people must be “born again,” and that without that occurring they could not enter the kingdom of God. Thus, the new birth, or regeneration, is a thing of great importance. But is regeneration the result of faith, or is it the cause of faith? And what part does the human will play in this eternally significant event? These are the questions answered in this book by this great theologian Peter Van Mastricht. He was educated at the University of Utrecht, and held pastorates in Germany and Denmark before accepting a position as professor of Hebrew and practical theology at Frankfurt, and later at his alma mater. This material is taken from his Theologia Theoretico-Practica (Theoretical and Practical Theology). The great Jonathan Edwards incorporated many of Van Mastricht’s ideas in his famous book, The Freedom of the Will, also published by Soli Deo Gloria.

Jonathan Edwards once said of this book: “This book is much better than any other book in the world, excepting the Bible, in my opinion.”

This line from Edwards is quoted on the front cover of the book. Curious of the context, I wanted to track it down. After a little hunting, I was able to find it in the Works of Jonathan Edwards Online. Here is the full context of the quote.

In a letter to the Joseph Bellamy on January 15, 1746/7, Edwards writes,

Dear Sir,

I received your letter by Mr. [Job] Strong this day. Mr. [John] Searle was here at my house presently after, and I gave your questions to him, and told him the bearer intended quickly to return.

(As to the affair of sheep, I am much obliged to you for the pains you have taken. I believe you have acted the part of a trusty friend therein. I suppose it is known by this time, whether the man that went to Newtown has succeeded. If he has, and the sheep are bought, we shall rest in what you have done; but if not, and you shall have found no opportunity till this letter reaches you, it is so late in the year, that I desire you would keep the money till shearing time is over and then buy; when I suppose they may be bought much cheaper than now. But I would pray you to send us word by the first opportunity, that if we are not like to have any sheep this year, we may seasonably be looking out, and laying in for wool elsewhere, for the supply of the family. In the spring, if you can give us any encouragement, I should be glad to lay out £60 more for sheep in those parts, as soon as shearing time is over, – 217 – besides the £30 you have in your hands. But only, if you buy so many sheep for us, it might be perhaps expedient, on some accounts, for the present, not to let it be known who the sheep are for.)

As to the books you speak of: Mastricht is sometimes in one volume, a very thick, large quarto; sometimes in two quarto volumes. I believe it could not be had new under eight or ten pounds. Turretin is in three volumes in quarto, and would probably be about the same price.¹ They are both excellent. Turretin is on polemical divinity; on the Five Points, and all other controversial points; and is much larger in these than Mastricht; and is better for one that desires only to be thoroughly versed in controversies. But take Mastricht for divinity in general, doctrine, practice, and controversy; or as an universal system of divinity and it is much better than Turretin or any other book in the world, excepting the Bible, in my opinion. I have thoughts of sending, myself, this year, to England for a few books, and have written to Mr. [Edmund] Quincy, a merchant in Boston, about it, to desire his advice and assistance, as to the course to be taken to obtain ‘em. If I employ him to send for me, I shall be willing to serve you, as I desire you to serve me about the sheep. I am willing to take your money and put it with my own, and put your books into my catalogue and have the books all come as mine; or shall be willing to serve you, if I can in any respect, by writing to my correspondents in Scotland.

I have been reading Whitby, which has engaged me pretty thoroughly in the study of the Arminian controversy; and I have writ considerably upon it in my private papers. I must entreat you, if possible, to borrow for me Dr. Stebbing, on the Spirit.² I had rather pay something for the use of it, than not have some considerable opportunity with it. I have got so deep into this controversy, that I am not willing to dismiss it, till I know the utmost of their matters.

I have very lately received a packet from Scotland, with the several copies of a Memorial, for the continuing and propagating an agreement for joint prayer for the general revival of religion; three of which I here send you, desiring you to dispose of two of ‘em where they will – 218 – be most serviceable.³ For my part, I heartily wish it was fallen in with by all Christians from the rising to the setting sun.

I have returned you Mr. Dickinson’s book, but must pray you [to] let me have further opportunity with Dr. Johnson’s.⁴ If you could inquire of Dr. Johnson, or Mr. [John] Beach, or some other, and find out what is the best book on the Arminian side, for the defense of their notion of free will; and whether there be any better and more full than Whitby, I should be glad; provided you have convenient opportunity. I don’t know but I shall publish something after a while on that subject.

Dear Sir, we have so many affairs to confer upon that concern us both, that I would propose that you should come this way again in February or March. You han’t a great family to tie you at home as I have. But if you can’t come, I must desire you to write fully and largely on all the foregoing particulars of this letter. Herein you will oblige, your cordial and affectionate friend and brother,

Jonathan Edwards.

P.S. It now comes to my mind that I heard that Dr. [Joseph] Pynchon of Longmeadow has Turretin, and that he lately offered to change them away for other books; so that in all probability you may there have those books at a moderate price.

(“73. To the Reverend Joseph Bellamy,” in Letters and Personal Writings (WJE Online Vol. 16), ed. George S. Claghorn, 216–18.)

There are two things worth pointing out about this use of the quote from Edwards. I work in marketing, so I’m aware of the importance of presenting products in the best possible light, but it appears that this quote has been massaged just a tad—assuming that what I found is the real source of the quote.

1. I see no indication that Edwards was referring to this particular section of Van Mastricht’s Theoretica-Practica Theologia. (Would it be accurate to say that Edwards thought that the best book in the world was Nahum, just because it is part of the Bible, which he did indirectly refer to as the best book in the world?)
2. Edwards qualifies his “it is much better than . . . any other book in the world” statement by referring to “divinity in general, doctrine, practice, and controversy; or as an universal system of divinity.” Granted, that is fairly broad, but I think it would be wise to stop short of saying that Edwards called the part or the whole “better than . . . any other book in the world” without any qualification.

The quote on the book and on the product page should probably read, “For divinity in general, doctrine, practice, and controversy; or as an universal system of divinity . . . [Peter van Mastrict's Theoretica-Practica Theologia, from which A Treatise on Regeneration is excerpted and translated] is much better than . . . any other book in the world, excepting the Bible, in my opinion.” But that doesn’t have quite the same marketing force. :)

Anyway, my quibbles with the use of the quote aside, it still is a noteworthy endorsement.

So what’s your second favorite book in the world? I’m not sure I have one.

Footnotes

1. The books referred to are Peter van Mastrict, Theoretica-Practica Theologia, ed. nova (Utrecht, 1699); and Francis Turretin, Institutio Theologiæ Elencticæ (3 vols. Geneva, 1679—85). ↩
2. Daniel Whitby, A Discourse Concerning I. The True Import of the Words Election and Reprobation. II. The Extent of Christ’s Redemption. III. The Grace of God. IV. The Liberty of the Will. V. The Perseverance or Deflectability of the Saint (London, 1710); and Henry Stebbing, Treatise Concerning the Operations of the Holy Spirit (London, 1719). ↩
3. JE included the Memorial as part of the introduction to An Humble Attempt. See Works, 5, 324—28. ↩
4. Jonathan Dickinson, Vindication of God’s Sovereign Free Grace (Boston, 1746); Samuel Johnson, Letter from Aristocles, to Authades Concerning the Sovereignty and the Promises of God (Boston, 1745). ↩

Good stuff. John Piper shares his heart on womanhood, race, abortion, the prophetic perspective, the sovereignty of God, and the gospel as they relate to the election.

HT: JT