koinonia

Many people today talk about how we should try to think of God. All the other religions of the world are based on the idea of man seeking after ‘god’ or ‘gods.’ But Scripture teaches something much different. God seeks after man. God does not wait for man to seek him because man on his own will never find God or seek after Him.

The Westminster Confession of Faith in Chapter 7 speaks of the distance between God and man as being so great that we could never experience any enjoyment of God as our blessing and reward if God did not take the initiative to come to us. And God has done this through the means of covenant.

There are different definitions for covenant:

Covenant – an agreement or promise between two or more persons.

Covenant – a bond in blood, kingly given, broken only by death.

Covenant – the relationship that God begins and determines with His people.

Theologians debate on whether to call God’s dealing with Adam in the Garden of Eden a covenant. The word is not found in Genesis 1-3, but there are basic elements of what can be called a covenant. The covenant between God and Adam is sometimes called the covenant of works or the covenant of life. Looking at Genesis 2:15-17, there are the basic parts of a covenant. Adam was given permission to eat of every tree of the garden and forbidden at this time to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Gen. 2:15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Genesis 3:17-19 And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

Note that Adam and Eve are then kicked out of the Garden of Eden with no hope of return. They were cut of covenantally from the life that they had one enjoyed. But before Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden they were given a promise in Genesis 3:15.

Genesis 3:15 “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” Here in these words we see that God would bring salvation to Adam and Eve not through their own obedience but through a coming Savior.

The Westminster Confession of Faith states that following the fall of Adam (and Eve), the Lord was pleased to establish a new covenant.

Westminster Confession of Faith: 7.3 – Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein he freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.

Now you know enough about the Bible to realize that there are at least 4000 years of OT history before the coming of Christ. God prepared the way for the coming of Christ in a number of ways. God raised up the godly line of Seth. God then chose Noah and his family to be the ones who would continue the human race after God brought an incredible judgment on the entire world.

Then in Genesis 12 we have what can be described almost as a new creation. We have in Genesis 12 the beginning of Abraham’s story (it actually is introduced at the end of chapter 11).

Gen. 12:1 Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. 2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

We will continue looking at the Abrahamic Covenant next.

Link to Audio

Introduction: When Charles Darwin’s famous book On the Origin of Species was published 150 years ago on November 24, 1859, all 1,250 copies were purchased on the first day of publication. This suggests that the people of England were waiting very much for a theory that would mean that the Bible and the Christian God were no longer needed. “The world jumped at Darwin,” said George Bernard Shaw.[1]

What’s the big deal of not believing in the doctrine of creation and specifically a relatively recent creation in the space of six days?

Proposition: The issue is what will be determinative? Man’s supposed knowledge or the truth of God’s Word?

Basic Choices

1. Six-day creation, approximately 6,000 years ago.
2. Day-age theory, trying to correlate the ‘days’ of creation with periods of millions or billions of years.
3. Framework Hypothesis – no attempt to harmonize Genesis and the supposed conclusions of science.

Problem #1: How do we account for Adam, Sin, and the Need for Christ?

There are those who say that we can merge or synthesize Genesis and the idea of evolution. But where does this leave Adam? Do we somehow stop believing in evolutionary theory only when it involves the creation of man? There are even Christians today who are leaving the door open to the fact that Adam doesn’t even have to be a historical figure. Are we then going to say the same thing about Jesus Christ?

If Adam and Eve were created or evolved after life had already existed for millions of years then we must believe that death had already been present. Scripture, however, states that Adam’s sin led to death and an entirely changed world because of the curse.

Problem #2: Do we want to submit everything that Scripture says to the dictates of science? When and where do we draw the line?

If we must accept what ‘science’ states about the creation of the universe and our world, then where do we draw the line and start believing what the Bible declares that might supposedly goes against science? Do we accept the miracles of Jesus? Did Jesus really feed 5,000 men or as some want to say, did He merely teach them to share? Liberals have attempted to demythologize the Bible. Don’t we do the same thing when we start interpreting Genesis based on modern scientific theories?

The resurrection of Jesus Christ goes against all ‘scientific laws.’ Why should we accept this miracle but reject what Scripture clearly states about creation?

Problem #3: Do we recognize the danger of interpreting the Bible according to a theory, which at its core is anti-Christ?

The teaching of evolution is anti-Christ because it rejects the creation of the world through Jesus Christ and instead places improbable chance as the Creator. Why would we want to try to make such a theory fit with the truth of Scripture merely by saying that God has used such a process? Yes, there are many well meaning Christians who seek to do this. There are very intelligent professors in colleges and universities who have spent their entire careers trying to make this work. But it must be recognized that evolutionary theory cannot just co-exist with the truth of Scripture. “Every doctrine of Scripture is undermined when strict creationism is undermined. Wherever strict creationism is set aside, the vital nerve of Christianity is cut, and the church begins to move in terms of humanistic and political power rather than the power of God.”[2]

Don’t be ashamed or afraid to stand for the truth of Scripture. You need to focus on three areas of study.

a) What the Bible says concerning creation

b) Answers that creationists have given to the questions of evolutionists

c) What the evolutionists themselves teach

---

[1] R. J. Rushdoony, The Mythology of Science, 45.

[2] Ibid., 49.

Introduction: Did Columbus seek to prove that the world was round as he set out for the New World in 1492? The idea that there was a controversy over this is a hoax. Jeffrey Burton Russell explains the origin of this hoax in his fascinating book, Inventing the Flat Earth. The Flat-earth myth was propagated to seek to drive a wedge between ‘Science’ and the Bible.

Proposition: There is no conflict between the Bible properly understood and Science properly understood.

1. Modern Science Developed out of a Christian View of the World

Modern science did not develop in the advance cultures and civilizations of the Greeks, Romans, Chinese, and others.  Though those civilizations were culturally and sometimes politically sophisticated and advanced, because they worshipped nature, true science was never able to develop.  As Stanley Jaki puts it, science suffered “still births” in those civilizations.  It was only in an environment, influenced by Christianity, that science was able to begin and flourish.

Why did Science spring from a Christian worldview?  Today we of course see that few scientists are professed believers, there are some but they are in the minority.  Even with the attacks on Christianity by many of the current champions of science, we can say with confidence that only because of a biblical view of the world was science able to flourish. Why is that the case?

If we think about, the answer is no surprise. The Bible, though not a science textbook, presents the only true view of the world and creation. The physical creation is not god. The physical world is not eternal – there was a starting point in time. God world runs in a stable and coherent manner.  The physical world can be understood to a great degree because the world is real and not just our imagination. Another encouragement coming especially from the Protestant Reformation was that God wanted His people to use their talents not only in ‘religious’ service but in all areas of life. It was man’s duty to learn so that there could be benefit for others.[1] These fundamental and basic starting points are what allowed science to develop. In a worldview or religion that worships the physical world, there is no chance for true science to develop and flourish.

As an aside, there is no need for Christians to try to justify this argument by making every scientist of the past into a Christian. Isaac Newton was probably not an orthodox Christian. We don’t need to try to make all the scientists into Christians. Newton who spent a vast amount of time trying to convert lead into gold – he wrote over a million words on the subject – was still operating from a Christian worldview.  His contributions to science came because of the influence of Christianity. This is a major statement, but it has been proven true historically, and we are not surprised of its truth because of our view of God and creation.

Example of Galileo – The issue was not the Bible v. Science but had more to do with Galileo’s rejection of the philosophy of Aristotle. The Roman Catholic Church based many of its ideas on Aristotle.[2]

2. Science Hardly Has a Track Record for Being Always Right

There are different theories for how science develops and progresses. Some would see a slow natural progression where science is constantly learning new truth after another. But this would be much too simplistic. Most science education does not focus enough on the history of science and the failures of scientific theories and ideas. We shouldn’t have to feel like just because many scientists believe in something, then it must be true.

Not too many years ago, it was very respectable to believe that some races of people were superior and that it was to man’s advantage to keep down the population of inferior races. This was part of the ‘science’ of Eugenics. Major universities studied ways to achieve the goal of developing an advanced race. Those deemed inferior were forbidden to marry, sterilized, and treated in other very inhumane ways. And this was all in the name of science and the supposed human good.

3. We must distinguish between science based on actual observation and careful measurements where actual theories can be tested and that science which is focused on theories that cannot really be tested. In this sense, creation is not ‘scientific’ but neither is evolutionary science.

---

[1] Nancy R. Pearcey and Charles B. Thaxton, The Soul of Science, 23, 34-35

[2] Ibid., 39.

There are few subjects more important for younger Christian men and women to seek to master than the debate between creation vs. evolution. Our faith will certainly come under attack. We must stand humbly but confidently on the foundation of God’s Word as we seek to understand the issues and work through some of the very difficult questions that arise. This first post deals with the evidence for a literal six-day creation.

In Gen. 1:5 we have the first use of the word day. The Hebrew word is yom. The word yom appears 2,304 times in the Old Testament and is the 5^th most common noun. The majority of times that it is used is in reference to a normal day-night cycle.  It can though at times be used to represent an extended period of time, but that is not its most common usage. How can we tell when it is not referring to a literal day? The context of the passage would indicate otherwise. When day is used to refer to something other than a 24-hour day it is always used with special linguistic and contextual connections. When these are absent as in Genesis 1, the normal meaning is always assumed. And we know this just from our own communication.  When we ask other people, “How are you doing today?”, we are generally not asking them for their entire life story. The meaning is determined by the context, which in the case of Genesis 1 is quite obvious and clear.

Berkhof writes: ”In its primary meaning the word yom denotes a natural day; and it is a good rule in exegesis, not to depart from the primary meaning unless this is required by the context.”^[1]

Secondly, the word “day” is given additional qualification by the attachment of the phrase evening and morning.  In Genesis 1, it is interesting to note the order evening and morning and not morning and evening as we would normally express it. The expression implies that the God’s work transpired in the daylight part of the day ending in the evening. The combination of evening and morning occurs 37 times in the Old Testament and are always used in conjunction with a normal 24 hour day.

Exodus 18:13 – And so it was on the next day , that Moses sat to judge the people; and the people stood before Moses from morning until evening.

Exodus 27:21 – In the tabernacle of the congregation without the veil, which is before the testimony, Aaron and his sons shall order it from evening to morning before the LORD.

Third, each day in Genesis 1 is given a number.  When a number is used, it is always a reference to a literal day.  There are passages in scripture referring to creation that do not use a time scale but just refer to the fact that God created.  For example, in Isaiah 42:5 we read “Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he the spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it.” However, in Gen. 1, God chose to number the days giving them the clear context of a 24 hour day.  Gentry quotes Hasel: “When the word yom is employed together with a numeral, in refers in the Old Testament invariably to a literal day of 24 hours.”

Fourth evidence.  Please note Gen. 1:14-19.  Now some have questioned how can you have a 24 hour day when the sun is not even created until day four.  However, the same terminology is used before and after the sun is created to regulate the normal day and night pattern.  We know that days 4-6 must be regulated by the sun, but the day-night pattern was established before the sun was even created.  The sun simply fulfills the intention that God had already created.  Even before the sun was created, God had already established the day-night cycle.  Note verses 3-5 again.

The fifth evidence comes from the fact that man’s work week is specifically patterned after God’s work week.  God worked six days and then rested, as man is accordingly to also do.  Our work week is not just an analogy.  The fourth commandment is quite clear.  It ends by saying “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore, the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”

Please turn to Gen. 2:1-3.  The text does not use the normal evening and morning expression here to describe it.  Some have tried to then claim that this indicates it is not a 24 hour day and so the other days of creation are then not 24 hour days. This is the argument that Hugh Ross, a popular progressive creationist, uses.  This argument is quite ludicrous.  First, nowhere in the text does it say that God continues to rest.  Secondly, it also says that God blessed that day.  If the rest somehow continues, then the associated blessing also the continues.  However, we know that sin has now entered the world and along with that a curse has come.  Third, the seventh day follows six normal days, and there is no indication why it should be any different, especially since our week is patterned after God’s week.  In John 5 we read that Jesus healed a man on the sabbath.  Jesus responded by saying, “My father worketh hitherto, and I work.”

The sixth evidence is derived from the fact that every time the plural expression for day is used, “yammim”, it is always used in the context on normal 24 hour days. This is the word used in Exodus 20:11 – For in six days the Lord made the heaven and earth.

Seventh, Moses could have chosen to use another word if God implied an extended period for creation.  The word “olam” could have been used to represent an extended period of time or an era.  Normally the world is used to mean forever, but there are cases when the implied meaning is just an extended period of time.  The Israelites were told in Ex. 12:24, that they were to keep the Passover forever.  However, Christ instituted the new sacrament of the Lord’s Supper indicating that the Passover was not an eternal ceremony.

I would like to comment on one other objection raised by those who deny the literal six-day creation.  Please note Gen. 2:18-23.  Here we have the account of some of the details which occurred on the sixth day.  Some have said that the events transpiring on this day would imply that it was not simply a 24-hour day.  One progressive creationist argues that it would have taken weeks’, months’ or even years’ worth of activities for Adam to fulfill the task that God required of Him.^[2] However, as we have noted the sixth day account in Genesis 1 is bounded by the same parameters as the other days.  It also bears mention that Adam was not told to name all the animals but a specific category of animals.  The text specifically states the beasts of the field (not beasts of the earth), cattle, and fowl of the air.  How many animals to this leave for Adam?  Well, we have no real way of knowing.  Henry Morris makes an estimate of 3,000 animals which Adam could have name in several hours.^[3] While we of course don’t know all the details, there is no reason to believe that the sixth day is unlike the other days.

The arguments or evidences I have presented show quite convincingly that God intended to convey that the creation week was made of 6 24-hour days.  Our view does not depend on scientific evidence, though we of course expect to see some evidences of a young earth.  There are always going to remain some unanswered questions.  For example, how can we see light from stars that are supposedly 100,000 light years or more away?  These are other similar questions, however, should in no way cause us to rethink our position.  Rather, we need to rethink the answers to these questions in light of our interpretation of scripture.

---

[1] Quoted from Ken Gentry’s article in The Counsel of Chalcedon Magazine. October/November 1998

[2] Ross, Hugh. The Fingerprint of God. p. 150

[3] Morris, Henry. The Genesis Record. p. 97