by Jonathan Sarfati (original source here)
Some professing evangelical Christians accuse creationists of taking a naïve literalistic view of Genesis, and claim that creationism is a 20th century aberration. Nothing could be further from the truth. A straightforward view of Genesis was the view of Moses (Exodus 20:8–11), the Apostle Paul (Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:21–22,45; 1 Tim. 2:13–14) and the Apostle Peter (2 Peter 3:3–7), and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself (Matthew 19:3–6; Mark 10:6–9; Luke 17:26–27).
It was also the view of the vast majority of the Church Fathers, including the faithful defender of the Trinity, Basil the Great. See Genesis means what it says: Basil (AD 329–379).1
And the great leaders of the 16th Century Protestant Reformation, in returning to biblical authority, also accepted a straightforward view of Genesis. This includes the Father of the Reformation, Martin Luther — see What was Martin Luther’s stand on Creation/Evolution?2
One of the most influential of the Reformers was the French lawyer and theologian John Calvin (1509–1564). He became leader of Geneva (Switzerland), which became a refuge for 6,000 Protestants. Calvin founded the University of Geneva in 1559, which attracted many foreign scholars, and still does today. His monumental Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559) proclaimed the grace of God and salvation in Jesus Christ. He was also a skilled commentator on books of the Bible, including Genesis. His teachings influenced many confessions, catechisms, preachers, leaders of modern Christian revivals, and were brought to America by the Pilgrim Fathers.3
It’s very interesting that on every point on which CMI disagrees with much of modern Christendom, Calvin took our side. For example, Calvin believed that:
The earth is ‘young’:
‘They will not refrain from guffaws when they are informed that but little more than five thousand years have passed since the creation of the universe.’4
God created in six consecutive normal days:
‘Here the error of those is manifestly refuted, who maintain that the world was made in a moment. For it is too violent a cavil to contend that Moses distributes the work which God perfected at once into six days, for the mere purpose of conveying instruction. Let us rather conclude that God himself took the space of six days, for the purpose of accommodating his works to the capacity of men.’5
‘I have said above that six days were employed in the formation of the world; not that God, to whom one moment is as a thousand years, had need of this succession of time, but that he might engage us in the contemplation of his works.’6
The day-night cycle was instituted from Day 1 — before the sun was created [commenting on ‘let there be light’ (Genesis 1:3)]:
‘Therefore the Lord, by the very order of the creation, bears witness that he holds in his hand the light, which he is able to impart to us without the sun and the moon. Further, it is certain, from the context, that the light was so created as to be interchanged with the darkness … there is, however, no doubt that the order of their succession was alternate …’7
The sun, moon and stars were created on Day 4 — after the earth — and took over the role as light dispensers to the earth [commenting on ‘let there be lights …’ (Gen. 1:14)]
‘God had before created the light, but he now institutes a new order in nature, that the sun should be the dispenser of diurnal light, and the moon and the stars should shine by night. And he assigns them to this office, to teach us that all creatures are subject to his will, and execute what he enjoins upon them. For Moses relates nothing else than that God ordained certain instruments to diffuse through the earth, by reciprocal changes, that light which had been previously created. The only difference is this, that the light was before dispersed, but now proceeds from lucid bodies; which, in serving this purpose, obey the commands of God.’8
The Creation was originally ‘very good’ , lacking any evil [commenting on Genesis 1:31]:
‘On each of the days, simple approbation was given. But now, after the workmanship of the world was complete in all its parts, and had received, if I may so speak, the last finishing touch, he pronounces it perfectly good; that we may know that there is in the symmetry of God’s works the highest perfection, to which nothing can be added.’9
Suffering on the earth is the result of sin [commenting on Gen. 3:19]:
‘Therefore, we may know, that whatever unwholesome things may be produced, are not natural fruits of the earth, but are corruptions which originate from sin.’
Physical death is the result of sin:
‘And therefore some understand what was before said. “Thou shalt die”, in a spiritual sense; thinking that, even if Adam had not sinned, his body must still have been separated from his soul. But since the declaration of Paul is clear, that “all die in Adam, as they shall rise again in Christ” (1 Cor. xv. 22), this wound was inflicted by sin. …Truly the first man would have passed to a better life, had he remained upright; but there would have been no separation of the soul from the body, no corruption, no kind of destruction, and, in short, no violent change.’10
God created Adam and Eve directly [commenting on Gen. 5]:
‘… [Moses] distinguishes between our first parents and the rest of mankind, because God had brought them into life by a singular method, whereas others had sprung from previous stock, and had been born of parents.’11
The Flood was global [just a small part of an extensive discussion on the real, historical nature of the Flood and Ark]:
‘And the flood was forty days, &c. Moses copiously insists on this fact, in order to show that the whole world was immersed in the waters.’12
It is thus clear that if we accept the authority of Scripture alone, we must believe that Genesis should be taken at its plain meaning. Christians who deny this are imposing outside ideas onto Scripture. This is shown by the frank admission by the ‘progressive creationist’ Pattle Pun:
‘It is apparent that the most straightforward understanding of Genesis, without regard to the hermeneutical considerations suggested by science, is that God created the heavens and the earth in six solar days, that man was created on the sixth day, and that death and chaos entered the world after the fall of Adam and Eve, and that all fossils [sic — creationists would say ‘most’] were the result of the catastrophic deluge that spared only Noah’s family and the animals therewith.’13
Sadly, one hotbed of anti-creationist, theistic evolutionary/long age ideas even includes a college named after Calvin — Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michican, USA. Some of their staff have even invoked Calvin in support, although, as we have seen, Calvin opposed all such compromises.
Today the church needs a new Reformation to return to the authority of the Bible, the written Word of God, rather than trusting the fallible conjectures of unbelieving scientists.
References
Batten, D., Genesis means what it says: Basil (AD 329–379), Creation 16(4):23, 1994.
Citing Martin Luther, in Jaroslav Pelikan, editor, ‘Luther’s Works,’ Lectures on Genesis Chapters 1–5, 1:3,6, Concordia, St. Louis, MO, USA, 1958.
Packer, J.I., John Calvin and Reformed Europe; in: Great Leaders of the Christian Church, Ed. Woodbridge, J.D., Moody Press, Chicago, IL, USA, pp. 206–215, 1988.
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 2:925, ed. John T. McNeill, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1960.
Calvin, J., Genesis, 1554; Banner of Truth, Edinburgh, UK, 1984, p. 78.
Calvin, Genesis, p. 105.
Ref. 5, pp. 76–77.
Calvin, Genesis, p. 83.
Calvin, Genesis, p. 100.
Calvin, Genesis, p. 180.
Calvin, Genesis, p. 227.
Calvin, Genesis, p. 272.
Pun, P.P.T., Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 39:14, 1987; emphasis added.
Article by Ricky Alcantar (original source here)
I’m sure my parents talked to me about how important the church was in our lives. I’m sure they explained that because we love Jesus we love his people. I’m sure they explained that this was clear in the Bible.
But I don’t remember any of that.
Instead, this is what I remember: as long as I could remember, every other week, a bunch of people would invade our house, eat our food, and leave.
Our church small group was ingrained into our schedule like doctors appointments and Christmas Eve at Nana’s and dad’s work day. I’m sure my parents preached the theology of the church to me, but what I really listened to as a kid was how they preached their theology through the way they used their time.
I didn’t understand what the church was, or why it was important, but I got that it was important. Well, important enough for me to spend Wednesday afternoon helping get the house ready and Thursday morning cleaning up.
Take for example, what 1 Peter 2:4-5 says about the church:
As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house.
I couldn’t explain the metaphor of the verse to you as a 10-year-old, but I understood something: when my mom and dad met Jesus they started living differently. And part of living differently meant building their lives into other people, so much so that when other people hurt we hurt, when other people rejoiced we rejoiced, and when people left it was hard for all the right reasons.
I have kids of my own now, ages 2 and 4. All the four-year-old understands about church is that if you get there early there are donuts, that you have to wait for four songs before you can go to class, and that afterward, you can’t run on the stage. I talk to him whenever I can about the truths of 1 Peter 2 in a way he’d understand, but I’m comforted knowing that while he may not remember the conversations, he’ll remember our rhythm of life.
Whether you realize it or not, you’re teaching your kids a theology of the church with your time.
Here are some of the messages they can hear from us:
The church is important, just not as important as kids activities
We might think that we’re serving our kids by prioritizing their activities or sports over church, but in reality, we’re speaking loudly about priorities.
In his book Gospel-Powered Parenting, Bill Farley shares a story of a family that always made church activities secondary to their kid’s activities and then were surprised when they wandered from the church in their college years:
Mom and dad taught them well. Church was not important. God was not at the center of their lives. What really mattered were their children’s activities. Ken and Jackie had placed their children, and their success, on the throne of the family. Their children had heard the message, understood it, and imitated it.
The church is important, just not as important as mom and dad’s more important things
When work or hobbies take precedence over the church, the kids notice. The message is that the church is one important thing that sometimes gets pushed out by more important things.
Now I’m not saying there’s never an excuse to miss church. My dad had to work Sundays sometimes growing up (no way around it), but then he was even more intentional about us getting together with church people during the evening. I could see him straining to stay connected and it said something to me.
The church is important, just not as important as comfort and convenience
One of the most common reasons I hear from people who don’t make it to the Sunday gathering is that “There’s just a lot going on” or “We had a really busy weekend.” And really, I do judge that charitably–because I really don’t know the exact circumstances in most cases.
But if the family only goes to church when it’s not “inconvenient” and when everyone is feeling “100%” they won’t make it often at all. And “not often” has a funny way of becoming “not usually” and then “never.”
There have been sleepless nights with a newborn after which my wife Jenn didn’t make it to church, so I get that. But there have been a lot more sleepless nights she’s made it. Why? Because we as a family want that rhythm built into our life as a family and that little buddy’s life, too.
The church is important, important enough that we sacrifice for it
When you’ve had a busy weekend and you make it to church, your kids notice. When you rearrange athletic obligations to get to church, your kids notice. When you get in late from a trip Saturday night and make it to church, your kids notice. When you are willing to slog through traffic after work to make it to a small group meeting where the snacks aren’t amazing and the fellowship is a little forced but you do it anyway, your kids notice.
We have one guy who regularly plays on our worship team even after staying up till 2am most Saturdays because of his job. That says something to his kids. I want to say the same thing to my kids.
Now please, don’t misread this as legalism. Church attendance doesn’t save anyone, Jesus saves. Church attendance won’t save your kids, only Jesus can. But part of imparting a love for Jesus to our kids means imparting a love for Jesus’ family, the church. If we tell our kids one thing about the church and undermine it with our time, they’re sharp enough to get the message.
So what are you preaching about the church to your kids? What is your time preaching to them?
I heard simple truths like this read as a kid: “Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy” (1 Peter 2:10 ESV).
I couldn’t grasp how huge those words were–that once we were without a people but because of what Jesus has done we’ve become God’s people. But I knew this: we had a people and we saw our people on Sunday mornings and during the week at small group and sometimes unexpectedly when they showed up crying and sometimes in the hospital when they were sick.
They were our people. I heard that loud and clear.