Is Compromising Genesis with Millions of Years Cult-Like?

I believe those who compromise God’s Word in Genesis with evolution/millions of years are doing something similar, in a specific way that I’ll explain, to what cults do to the Bible.

Before people get too upset, I recognize that those who believe in the teachings of a cult cannot be Christians. And I also know that salvation in Christ is not conditioned upon believing in a young earth and rejecting evolution. I recognize there are true Christians who believe in millions of years and evolution. Now, I do believe they are compromising and thus undermining the authority of Scripture, but I’m not saying they are not Christians.

Anyone can force ideas into Scripture and claim they can interpret the Scriptures in a particular way to fit their ideas, no matter how wrong those ideas are. We are, after all, fallible, sinful human beings.

With all that out of the way, my point is this: anyone can force ideas into Scripture and claim they can interpret the Scriptures in a particular way to fit their ideas, no matter how wrong those ideas are. We are, after all, fallible, sinful human beings. Many times, we don’t even recognize how our particular presuppositions cause us to ignore the obvious and believe something incorrect. Those in cults who deny the deity of Christ or many other orthodox Christian beliefs do this all the time.

Why would I dare to say there is any similarity at all with those Christians who compromise Genesis and unbelievers in cults?

Where Do the Ideas Come From?

Let me explain it this way. I was once interviewed on radio by a minister who asked if I accepted that Christians can have different views of baptism, eschatology, speaking in tongues, Sabbath day, and a number of other issues. He said there are, of course, many Christian denominations with different theological positions on various issues. I acknowledged that this was so. He then said that in the same way, Christians can have different views on Genesis. This is where I disagreed. I explained it this way.

When Christians argue about different views of baptism, eschatology, speaking in tongues, and other such issues, they are primarily arguing from Scripture. They will say things like, “Scripture here states this.” And the person they are arguing with might respond, “Yes, but over here, it states this.” And so the arguments continue. Mostly though, they are arguing from Scripture to try to justify their particular stand on an issue. (And obviously they can’t all have the correct interpretation!) Provided this doesn’t affect major doctrines, Christians can live with each other and with those differences. In a sense, they can agree to disagree because they are arguing using exegesis.

But when Christians have different views of Genesis, they are primarily arguing from outside Scripture, taking their beliefs to Scripture. Mostly, they are trying to fit man’s ideas of evolution and millions of years (based in naturalism) into the Bible. As they do this, they invent all sorts of creative ways to fit such beliefs into Scripture, resulting in positions like the gap theory, theistic evolution, progressive creation, framework hypothesis, and so on. The main motive for these positions is not exegesis (out of), but eisegesis (into). They are trying to force beliefs from outside Scripture onto Scripture.

There’s no way you get millions of years from Scripture. There’s no way you could ever get from Scripture the idea of apelike creatures evolving into humans. There’s no way you could get from Scripture the big bang idea of stars supposedly forming millions of years ago, then the sun, then the earth as a hot molten blob.

There’s no way you get millions of years from Scripture.

This is a serious problem. Those who compromise Genesis are using beliefs from outside Scripture and trying to force them into Scripture, and then they reinterpret the words of Scripture to claim they fit with their beliefs. I assert that this is an undermining of the authority of Scripture. It’s also an attack on the character of God when you understand that believing in millions of years is believing that death and diseases like cancer (as one sees in the fossil record) existed before man and before man sinned. After he made man, God called everything he made “very good”! Believing in millions of years would mean God called death, cancer, other diseases, and suffering “very good.” No, the Bible makes it clear our sin is responsible for death, disease, and suffering and that it’s now a groaning world (Romans 8:22) because of sin.

Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth

Now, I’ve had many Christian leaders who believe in millions of years tell me that saying the universe is only thousands of years old is just my interpretation of Scripture. They tell me we all interpret Scripture and that their interpretation is valid. They say we just need to agree we all interpret Genesis differently.

It is true we all interpret what we read because we have presuppositions concerning the type of literature, the meaning of words in context, and so on. So yes, we all interpret the words in Genesis. Whose interpretation then is correct?

My father taught me to always take Scripture the way it was meant to be taken. There are different sorts of literature in the Bible, including historical narrative, poetic literature (e.g., the Psalms), apocalyptic literature (e.g., Revelation), etc. I was taught to use the grammatical-historical interpretive method, which means to interpret the words according to the type of literature, the language, the context, and so on—searching for what the original author intended. We are to carefully observe the text, understand that context is key, look for clarity of Scripture, compare Scripture with Scripture, deal with classification of the text (type of literature), and search out the church’s historical view.

Now, Genesis is written as historical narrative. As Dr. Tim Chaffey put it,

Genesis seems to be structured on the recurrence of the Hebrew phrase eleh toledoth (“This is the book of the genealogy of . . .” or “This is the history of . . .”). This occurs 11 times throughout the book: six times in Genesis 1–11 and five times in chapters 12–50. Clearly, the author intended that both sections should be interpreted in the same way—as historical narrative.... The New Testament treats Genesis 1–11 as historical narrative. At least 25 New Testament passages refer directly to the early chapters of Genesis....

Genesis 1–11 is written as real history and must be read and interpreted as such. When we do this, Genesis is easy to understand and is in total conflict with man’s evolutionary beliefs.

So, we need to interpret Scripture literally. But what do I mean by “literally”? I mean naturally. If it’s history, read it as history. If it’s poetry, read it as poetry—knowing it can use simile, metaphor, and figurative language. But Genesis 1–11 is written as real history and must be read and interpreted as such. When we do this, Genesis is easy to understand and is in total conflict with man’s evolutionary beliefs.

As you read Genesis, make sure you are letting God’s Word speak to you and that you are not trying to impose outside ideas on the text. I challenge you to make sure you are letting God speak to you rather than you telling God what he means.

Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:5–6)

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.