Creation Account: Interpretations & Consequences

Over the past few months, this congregation has come under attack due to its stand for the truth. The elders have met and agreed that it is time to answer the attack and to note the source of the attacks. As in all matters of truth, we encourage all to compare every teaching to the standard of truth as we "search the scriptures daily, whether these things are so" (Acts 17:11). Let us all examine the teaching to be reviewed, going "to the law and to the testimony" as our pattern for all truth (Isa. 8:20; 2 Tim. 1:13; 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3).

The recent attack began when David Mathews, a member at the Skyview congregation and one known to several members here, publicly named this congregation and took issue with the truth taught here. Within the past week, David has published several public posts naming South Livingston and its elders. In one, he likened himself to David of the Bible with "some very big and very interesting stones" ready for our "Goliath" (6/18/02). When he attended the services of this congregation, David took some of our bulletins and published his erroneous comments seeking to refute the truth taught. The comments were published on an Internet discussion list, called the "Berean Spirit list," as well as other avenues. We were made aware of these attacks by brethren in other places across the country. Please understand that while we are glad for anyone to take material published by this church and review it, we also have the responsibility to answer the error that the reviewer teaches.

The current assault on this congregation has its root in our stand to uphold the Bible affirmation concerning the literal truth of the creation account. Over the past two weeks in this bulletin, we have dealt with that very issue. We have shown the divine commentary given on the creation account in passages like Exodus 20:9-11, Exodus 31:15-17, Psalm 33:6-9, Hebrews 4:3, Mark 10:6 and others. The clear and consistent point of God's word is that God spoke into existence the heavens, the earth, the sea and all the inhabitants of them in mature form in six literal days at the beginning.

Last week, we closed the bulletin article with the warning that departure from the literal interpretation of the creation account has serious consequences which some brethren have failed to understand. This error opens the floodgate for a wider digression of non-literal interpretation which knows no end. Though some may seek to characterize this point as a scare tactic, it most assuredly is not. We need not speculate about the connection years down the line, but let us examine a few statements proving the connection now:

"The Scriptures do not, and can not, demand an interpretation, because even those passages which would seem to demand an interpretation are themselves subject to interpretation. That is to say, all Scriptural texts are interpreted. Reality is that multiple interpretations are available for almost all Scriptures, including the creation account.... Genesis 1-2 must have a symbolic or allegorical meaning" (David Mathews in published exchange with Marc Gibson - 5/17/00).

"Genesis 1 is not a straightforward historical text because its subject matter is neither straightforward... nor is it historical.... The creation text itself possesses structure and organization which is more closely associated with poetry and allegory rather than history" (David Mathews in published exchange with Marc Gibson - 5/18/00).

Without showing evidence from the Bible that the creation account should be interpreted in a non-literal way, David insists that it must not be literal. Why? His writing makes the reason clear -- he accepts as fact that "the Earth is billions of years old" and reinterprets the Scripture because its literal reading conflicts with evolutionary theories currently in vogue:

"I believe that a strict literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2 combined with dogmatic Young Earth creationism must lead inevitably to a direct contradiction between the Bible and science. I don't believe that the Bible's authors were particularly concerned about history, chronology and the age of the Earth. Old Testament Israel was too involved in the process of attempting to form a functioning society in a violent world to concentrate on questions regarding the origin and development of the Earth and human society" (David Mathews, public post - 6/16/02).

David does not only reject the literal truth of the creation account, but he views it as originating from the human authors with their historical and cultural limitations. However, the Bible clearly claims the teaching in Scripture was the result of concepts, timing and words chosen by the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:6-13; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). David's teaching assaults the basic truth of inspiration as well as assaulting the particular example of such in the creation account.

In fact, this young man takes his non-literal approach to Scripture to its logical end. He denies that the Bible declares a uniform and harmonious truth that we can and must understand as consistent with itself (cf. Eph. 5:17; 3:1-4). Instead, he affirms that contradictory conclusions may be reached from Scripture and both be right. He says,

"The mere existence of contradictory message does not prove that there is false doctrine. Perhaps both sides are correct in their own minds, interpreting the Scriptures in a legitimate and rational manner within the confines of their own religious preconceptions" (David Mathews, Berean Spirit list, Sent: 4/1/02).

Now, where does this kind of interpretation lead one? What is the logical end of this train of thought? This young man has accepted the logical conclusion of the teaching being done by too many brethren today. When one denies the literal truth of the beginning chapter of the Bible, the stage is set for further denial of literal truth throughout the Scripture. When one denies that we may be certain of God's harmonious truth revealed in the word, the stage is set to tolerate and receive any and every error. The following statements show just such a digression:

"We should not assume that simply because we are narrow-minded that we are conforming with Jesus' narrow-mindedness. Jesus' opinion of the Baptists, Methodists and Presbyterians may be far more positive than ours" (David Mathews, Berean Spirit list, Sent: 4/1/02). "When meeting a Baptist we ought to consider such people Christians and politely neglect the title 'Baptist' as both irrelevant and inconsequential. When meeting a Methodist we ought to consider such people Christians and politely neglect the title 'Methodist' as both irrelevant and inconsequential. Therefore all believers and followers of Christ -- including all those who are ignorant and in error -- are considered Christians and Christians only" (David Mathews, Berean Spirit list, Sent: 6/4/02).

"I don't know whether or not the Muslims are going to heaven. That decision belongs to God. From the standpoint of preference, I would rather see a billion Muslims in heaven. I would ask God to extend His mercy and Jesus' atonement to these people based strictly upon His own goodness and nothing else" (David Mathews, Berean Spirit list, Sent: 4/4/02).

"I also hope that God will save atheists and agnostics. Imagine how these people would act in heaven, knowing as they will that they spent their life consciously disregarding and disrespecting God. They would praise God the most as they would have received the gift of salvation most undeservedly" (David Mathews, Berean Spirit list, Sent: 4/3/02).

Jesus said, "Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied by Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name? And then I will declare to them, I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness" (Matt. 7:21-23). A literal interpretation of Jesus' words cannot be reconciled with the salvation of those abiding in denominations, Islam and atheism. The non-literal interpretation of Scripture ultimately reaches this dangerous end.

Those who read the "Big Bang" theory and billions of years of evolutionary change into the creation account are paving the way for non-literal interpretations of other doctrines as well. If we open the doors to proponents of the "Big Bang" theory today, reasoning it is not that bad, the fruits of our broader fellowship will be seen in the lost souls of our children who will carry the attendant lack of faith to its end. Brethren, we are not drifting in so doing -- we are speeding away with a big bang!