R.C. Sproul Changes his Views on Genesis 1

Non-Technical - May 21, 2008 - by Henry B. Smith Jr. MA

Share/recommend this article:

In response to "Jim's" comment about RC Sproul from 6/03/08... As with most posts here, i can only be very brief...

It is difficult to know your exact viewpoint on the subject, since you wrote only one sentence. But just from this one sentence, it appears that this may be your viewpoint: "You believe that God created the universe, but think that Genesis One cannot be definitively understood (or is mythical, or non-literal). ABR and others are wrong to say that RC Sproul has indeed corrected his view." This is fallacious reasoning for a couple reasons:

1. If this is the case, then what part of the Bible can we clearly understand? Do we apply this same uncertainty to the Exodus, or the Conquest, or David, or Hezekiah? Or the miracles of Christ? Why not apply the same uncertainty to the Resurrection? Can we say that Jesus died and was raised from the dead for our sins? What if a liberal theologian once rejected the Resurrection, but changes his mind and then believes the Resurrection? Do we not say he corrected his error? Or does only God know if that is in fact true? This logic, applied consistently, would lead to rampant skepticism being foisted upon all of Scripture, effectively rendering us unable to claim anything as true.

2. Genesis is written in the form of historical narrative, and like the rest of Scripture, its meaning can be ascertained through grammatical-historical exegesis. There is no reason to understand it in any other way except the way the church predominantly understood it for the better part of 19 centuries: God created the universe in 6 days.

If God created the universe, and He has revealed to us in Scripture information about that series of events, then we can say with certainty that it is so because GOD HAS SAID IT IS SO. God is an adequate witness to Himself and His acts of creation. Here, we should be reminded that many things are a mystery to us, but nothing is a mystery to God. But He does in fact reveal things to us, re: Deuteronomy 29:29: "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever..."

3. There are many valid Biblical, linguistic, theological, and YES, scientific reasons to take Genesis One as straightforward. ABR has held this view since its inception in 1969, and each of our scholars and staff believe this view is the correct understanding of Genesis One, and the only view that remains true to all Scriptural considerations. See ABR statement of faith, # 10, here: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/about/

Biblical-- Confirmed by Jesus in Mark 10:6; in Exodus 31:17, and other places.

Linguistic and Scientific-- Other ministries, such as CMI, have done exhaustive work on this subject:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3003
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/21/65/

See also AIG: http://www.answersingenesis.org/
And ICR: http://www.icr.org/

Theological-- I refer you to my own research on this subject: www.biblearchaeology.org/.../...om-Adams-Fall.aspx

I have done a complete exegesis of the Greek text of Romans 8:18-23, and have found no serious textual rebuttal of Paul's assertion that the entire universe fell into destruction and death at the time of Adam's Fall, and not before, supporting the six day/young earth understanding of Genesis One.
Christ Himself will redeem the Sons of God AND the creation to its originally intended condition (Colossians 1)

This is a mere small sampling of our research, study and understanding of the Genesis One narrative. The authors of the N.T. certainly took it as literal, and so should we. We can in fact state with great certainty that Dr. Sproul (a very fine scholar) was making an error previously, and has now corrected that error.
--Henry Smith