Three Non-Negotiable Truths About Creation
Broadly speaking, God has revealed Himself in two ways, commonly referred to as “general” and “special” revelation. As Dr. Norman Geisler explains, “While the Bible is God’s only written revelation, it is not God’s only revelation; He has more to say to us than is in the Bible. His general revelation in nature, man, history, art, and music offers vast opportunities for continual exploration.”[1] This revelation from God is called “general” because of its universal reach and its non-salvific content. No one, at any time or in any place, can claim to be without knowledge of God as mediated through creation or conscience (Rom. 1:18-32; 2:14-15). On the other hand is “special” revelation. Geisler continues: “Special revelation contributes uniquely to Christian theology, for the Bible alone is infallible and inerrant. Further, the Bible is the only source of both God’s revelation as Redeemer and His plan of salvation. Thus, Scripture is normative for salvation.”[2]
Since God is the Author of both general and special revelation, these cannot contradict one another, and one can help us understand the other. This “unity of knowledge” was the basic model on which prominent universities such as Princeton (1746), Brown (1764), Rutgers (1766), and Dartmouth (1769) all were founded.[3] Historian George Marsden expounds the intellectual heritage of the American university founded on the “unity of knowledge” paradigm:
The truths learned from Scripture and those learned from nature were assumed to be complementary. Christians who had long learned from the pagans could learn even more from their own natural philosophers. And since the creator of heaven and earth was also the author of Scripture, truths learned through the methods of philosophy and those learned from biblical authority would supplement each other and harmonize in one curriculum.[4]
The premise that God is the Author of two complementary revelations is epitomized in the methodology of the nineteenth century theologian Charles Hodge:
“God is the author of our nature and the maker of heaven and earth, therefore nothing which the laws of our nature or the facts of the external world prove to be true, can contradict the teachings of God’s Word. Neither can the Scriptures contradict the truths of philosophy or science.”[5]
Since God cannot contradict Himself, what He revealed in nature cannot contradict what He revealed in Scripture. Therefore, not only can the Bible speak to the world of natural science, but the well-established facts of science should also influence how we interpret Scripture.[6] To put it in colloquial terms: “All truth is God’s truth.” Nowhere in Christian theology is this truth more important, not to mention controversial, then in the interpretation of the Genesis record of creation.
Three Non-Negotiable Truths About Creation
1. The Creation Account is Historical
Genesis 1 is not mythology, metaphor, or an allegory. The Bible itself provides ample evidence of the historicity of the creation account, as demonstrated by numerous internal markers. First, the grammar indicates that the text is of a narrative genre, indicating it is historical in nature. Second, the text presents Adam and Eve as historical persons and narrates important events in their lives. Third, the toldot structure (repetition of the phrase “this is the history of”) indicates its historical nature. Each toldot introduces a narrative section that essentially tells the reader “what became of” the person or thing mentioned. There are eleven “toldots” including Adam, Noah, Shem, Terah, and Jacob. If the latter four describe actual historical events, it stands to reason that the first one does as well. Fourth, the very first word in 1 Chronicles is Adam. All the names that follow are regarded as historical figures. There is no (non a priori) reason to disregard the historicity of Adam in the text. Fifth, the prophet Hosea regarded Adam to be an historical figure (Hosea 6:7). Sixth, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus traces itself from Jesus, the son of Joseph, all the way back to “Adam, the son of God.” If all seventy-six names leading up to Adam are historical, there can be no legitimate reason to take the reference to Adam as anything less than historical. Seventh, in a debate with the Pharisees over marriage and divorce, Jesus referred to the first “male and female” (Matt. 19:4), whom He evidently regarded as historical persons. Eighth, Paul argued that, “sin reigned from Adam to Moses.” His entire argument regarding Christ would fail if Adam were not an historical person (Rom. 5:12-21). Ninth, Paul’s instructions regarding church leadership presupposes the historicity of Adam and Eve (1 Tim. 2:12-14).
2. Creation is Supernatural
Here three observations are in order. First, divine commands produced supernatural results. God said: “Let there be light.” And there was light. God said: “Let dry land appear.” And it was so. God said: “Let the earth sprout vegetation.” And it was so. God said: “Let the earth bring forth living creatures.” And it was so. God said: “Let us make man in our own image.” Divine commands produced supernatural results. Second, the Genesis text indicates three particular emphases of supernatural activity. The creation of matter itself was a supernatural act. Besides God Himself, there was nothing (as in “non-being”), then, at the command of God, there was something (“the heavens and the earth”). Moreover, the creation of life was a supernatural act. God spoke two times on the third day, the second time issuing in life (vegetation). Finally, the creation of man was a supernatural act and not a product of natural processes. As on the third day, the narrative also records God speaking twice on the sixth day, indicating a critical ontological distinction between mankind and the animal kingdom. Third, naturalism and evolutionism are ultimately incompatible with the Genesis account of creation. While there is no inherent incompatibility between a bland theism and neo-Darwinian evolution, there is, on the other hand, an inherent contradiction in the idea of biblical evolution. Attempts to harmonize Darwinism and the Bible nearly always end up harmonizing Darwinism with something less than biblical theism.[7]
3. Creation is Foundational
Dr. Henry Morris correctly notes, “The true religion must necessarily be based on worship of the world’s true Creator.” In contrast, false religion is worship of the creation rather than Creator.[8] Creation also establishes the foundation of Christology. Jesus is the very Source of the creation (John 1:3; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2). Jesus, before He became the incarnate Redeemer, was the One through Whom God fashioned the heavens and the earth. Creation is also the foundation of faith itself. Without faith it is impossible to please God. The Book of Hebrews tells us it is by faith that we understand that the universe was created (ex nihilo) by the word of God. Creation is the foundation of the home, the family, and human flourishing. And creation is the very foundation of our worship:
Let all the earth fear the Lord; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast. (Ps. 33:8-9).
[1] Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, Introduction and Bible (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2002), 69.
[2] Geisler, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, 69.
[3] D. H. Meyer, “American Intellectuals and the Victorian Crisis of Faith,” American Quarterly 27, no. 5 (Dec. 1975): 57.
[4] Marsden, 50.
[5] Mark A. Noll and David N. Livingstone, eds., Charles Hodge: What is Darwinism? And Other Writings on Science & Religion (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), 56.
[6] Ibid., 31.
[7] For a prime example, see Karl W. Giberson, Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution (New York: Harper Collins, 2008).
[8] Ibid., 114.