I read Table Talk from Ligonier Ministries, having been given a subscription by my mother-in-law. I thought the issue in question was the most helpful one I have seen yet, especially R.C. Sproul Jr's. I would like to respond to this article below, since it is an open letter after all. The writer takes Sproul Jr. to task on several counts, I believe, unfairly.

Here starts Pastor John Morgan's open letter, with my comments interspersed:

An open letter to R.C. Sproul Jr.
Editor of Table Talk - a monthly devotional

Dr. Sproul:

The way your July 2001 issue of Table Talk handled the age of the Earth issue grieved me. The articles contained ad hominum innuendo, ignored major issues and distorted fact. Although you are not the author of all the articles, I address my comments to you as editor.

In spite of my strong disagreement on significant issues, I am with you on several points. You and I agree that the issue of creation is critical and the age issue is significant. You say that the doctrine of creation is ... both neglected to our peril and elevated to a degree of importance that it does not deserve.

I agree. The age issue is a worthy hill to skirmish over but receives too much attention. The truth of creation is a hill we should die defending. You say that
"Those who are ashamed of creation are likely, in time, to be ashamed of the Resurrection, which in turn will make them ashamed of the gospel."

I agree. You apparently disagree with the apologetic method of Van Til. So do I. David Hall says,
"Biblical Creation may be a doctrine that is inherently and unavoidably offensive to the natural mind."
Good point.

However, a creation event 12 billion years ago still offends the natural mind. I separate the age issue from the core truth of creation. A man may entertain a faulty picture of how and when God created and still have a sincere faith in the God of creation and His Son, Jesus Christ. I, of course, refer to those who embrace a young-earth. Perhaps they would be gracious enough to apply my words to me but more often I find that my young-earth brothers question my very salvation. Those who command the largest megaphones in the public square tie the age issue tightly to salvation. With this I strongly disagree and suspect that you might also.

You say that "we need to consider what motivates those who would deny a six-day Creation. Doug Kelly questions motives also and at one point asks, "Is it not a fair observation that it must have been something from outside of Scripture that made them go to such lengths to evaluate the plain Biblical meaning of the word day?" True in some cases but certainly not all.

My comment: This is a good insight into those who believe in an older earth: They have to do that from some source elsewhere. They get no such indication from Scripture.

Morgan continues:

For me the initial impetus to question the young-earth position does come from outside of Scripture but not outside of revelation. Creation (general revelation, I think you would agree) testifies of itself.

A commendably candid admission followed by an unfortunate misunderstanding of the word "revelation". Our pastor's first sentence can be rewritten thus:

"It was something outside of God's Word that made me doubt God's Word."

As far as "revelation" is concerned: In terms of bringing someone to a saving knowledge of Christ, there is only one "revelation" - the Word of God. In a general sense, there are two, the two being very unequal. The fallacy of progressive creationists (modified evolutionists) is twofold:

1. Having two forms of -special- revelation and
2. Giving both equal importance.

The revelation of God's Word is sui generis; there is no other to compare it with. Any understanding of our creation from outside of Scripture, that seems to contradict Scripture, is to be held inadmissible evidence; not because it will damage the cause of Bible-believing literalists, but because it is confessedly second-rate. Paul was inspired to tell Timothy that "all Scripture" ..."is profitable" and "able to make wise unto salvation". This includes Genesis 1 of course. The misread evidence and cavils of non-theist scientists do not have this divine good seal of authority.

Morgan again...

And that testimony is 100% consistent that the universe and Earth are billions of years old. Contrary to Steve Wilkins comments, the evidence for the age of the universe goes far beyond "speculations" and are not "beyond the capabilities of scientific inquiry." The evidence is so diverse, so inter-related, so unambiguous that if the universe is young, then someone has falsified the evidence. The amount and types of evidence for an ancient universe far outweigh the evidence available to Galileo when he argued that the Earth moves around the Sun.

Testimony? What testimony is he talking about? This is the subtle shell game that progressivists are quite good at.

"Wait!", some gullible Christians might say, "He's talking about "testimony". That's a Christian word!"

No, sit down, he's just talking about what science presupposes about origins. Does the scientific community (by and large) flatly pronounce that the earth and universe are billions of years old? Unfortunately, yes. Does the Bible? Not at all. So where is the "100% consistent" agreement? There is none. Do the math: Assuming that all scientists somehow agreed on this (they don't) and they get an equal vote with the Bible on this (they don't) that would mean 50% agreement. Don't you see that this is a cheap rhetorical trick? Where do you see -any- indication above as to how Scripture "agrees" to such nonsense?

As far as "falsified evidence" is concerned, God is not obligated to take off the skeptics self-imposed blinders anymore than the Incarnate Son was disposed to keep the blind from following the blind.

Morgan:

As a former agnostic, it never occurred to me to distrust nature. When I studied Einstein's general relativity, it persuaded me that there must be a Creator. Should I have concluded that nature only appears to be created? Isn't this what the Bible says should happen even if I don't read the Bible? (Rom 1) Agnostics and atheists have no reason to distrust the universe - what motive could it have to lie?

This seems to be a fundamental presuppositional fallacy of many in these people: They lump together mute universe itself (which cannot lie) with the self-appointed interpreters of the universe - scientists, philosophers, some pastors... (who are unaware how deeply they are enslaved to sin-caused bias).

Agnostics and atheists have no reason to distrust the universe - what motive could it have to lie? And Christians should have no reason to distrust creation - God cannot lie. Does not the Scripture itself tell us that the heavens declare the glory of God even to those who have never seen the written Word or heard the voice of a prophet? Even if Scripture were silent on the point, the heavens would still declare God's glory. They did so before David ever wrote the words and continue to do so for people who have never read David's words. So the question is: Do the heavens declare truth or fiction?

The heavens do declare truth. But the truth only goes so far when it is whispered or hinted at. That is the whole limitation of natural "revelation" (if I really must use the word, it is in a limited sense). Nature tells us there is a God, but does not tell us how to get to God (Hugh Ross notwithstanding). That is where the Word of God comes in. Many who lift up natural revelation as being on par with God's Word often misapply Psalm 19 to make it seem to speak of two equal types of revelation, when actually the Psalm shows, by contrast, how very much better the written Word of God is than the scant information that is to be gleaned from the heavens. God might get our attention with His works in creation, but it is the Word of God that "revives the soul". It not only reveals God in a personal way that creation cannot, it probes into our very defenses "and is a discerner of the thought and intents"of our heart (Hebrews 4:12).

It is this very probing that makes the Psalmist cry out "Forgive my hidden faults." They were hidden, but God's Word found them out. Jesus told His followers, "It is the Spirit who gives; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." (John 6:63) It is this same Holy Spirit who came to the world to "convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment." (John 16: 8) Jesus spoke about the enemies of the truth that, though they had seen and heard all the "revelation" that creation afforded (Psalm 19:1-4, Romans 1:19), yet their real guilt only started when Christ came personally and spoke with them personally and they still did not believe.

Back to Morgan:

If we see a star explode in a distant galaxy, is the event real? Or did God create the appearance of an explosion? If God created the light enroute then the star never existed in a pre-explosion state and the event is fictitious. The heavens which declare the glory of the God of Truth become a fiction. If you say it is real, how did we come to see it if the star is millions of light years away? Should Christians say that we know the speed of light and we know the distance and we know the calculation of travel time but (wink, wink) we know it is not true.

This is binary fallacy: "There can only be two possibilities. If it isn't door #1, then it -must- be door #2!" No, there are actually other doors. The more we trust God, the more we begin to see other possibilities. The "in-transit" theory is not feasible, but neither is the assumption that light years are anything but measures of distance. There is another possibility (but that would be another article altogether - No, it would not be in a supposed slowdown in the speed of light either).

If light from a distant galaxy shows attenuation by dust, did the light actually pass through the dust? Or did God create it to look like it went through a dust cloud? Why would God do such a thing? Can you see that a believer can and should honestly give weight to the testimony of creation? Can you see that this is where unbelievers start. If we can't trust creation, why should we trust the Creator?

This last sentence is the exact reason why Christians need to really study what the Bible has to say about beginnings, trusting God to reveal the answer in due time. "In all your ways acknowledge Him, and he will direct your paths." Once again, Morgan does the shell game, using "testimony" in order to buy equal credibility for the mere pronouncements of scientists.

When creation shows us an ion jet stream a million light years long, did it form over time or would you say God created it in place? How long did it take for the light to get to us? How about galaxies which appear to have been colliding for eons? Did God create them in the mid-collision?

Once again, light year is a distance, not a length of time. It is only the assumption that makes it seem otherwise. All of the other comments above are thus mooted.

Orginally updated July 17, 2002

Part 2