Chapter 4
So Why the Controversy?
In the last half of the 20th century, a number of Christians and organizations came to believe that to maintain the integrity of Scripture, the 6 creation days must be considered standard solar days. To honor the Scriptures and resist the influence of philosophical naturalism, they believe it’s important to question the prevailing geological understanding that the earth is billions of years old. By emphasizing the global nature of the flood in the days of Noah, they reason that such a catastrophic event would distort any scientific measurements that assume more gradual and uniform variances in the geologic record of the earth. For many who hold this view, these conclusions are a matter of deep conviction. They reason that if the first chapters of Genesis are not read as scientifically specific, the rest of the historical narrative would be seen as little more than a spiritualized narrative that has little relationship to literal reality.
Other believers, however, remain convinced that the first chapters of Genesis are a rich historical account that accurately—but generally—reflects what God did over long periods of ancient history. These old-earth creationists are convinced that the opening words of Genesis express an inspired creation narrative that is a grand, intelligent, and beautiful apologetic for the divine inspiration of the Bible. Instead of concluding that evidence for an ancient earth was created by a catastrophic flood, this group agrees with many theologians of past generations who believed that the earth is millions of years old—and that such a belief is not at all inconsistent with the Scriptures.
This view, widely held throughout church history, is summarized by Henry Thiessen of the Wheaton College Graduate School. In his Lectures In Systematic Theology (1949, Eerdmans), he concurred with William G. T. Shedd in his Dogmatic Theology (1889, Scribners):
Was there a long or short period between the original creation in verse 1 [of Genesis] and the 6 days of creation in the rest of the chapter? Shedd says: “The doctrine of an immense time, prior to the 6 creative days, was a common view among the fathers and schoolmen” (Vol. I, p.474). The first creative act occurred in the dateless past, and between it and the work of the 6 days there is ample room for all the geologic ages. The interval may have run into thousands or even into millions of years. . . . Are the 6 days to be thought of as long periods or as 6 literal days? Shedd says, speaking generally, “The patristic and medieval exegesis makes them to be long periods, not days of 24 hours. The latter interpretation has prevailed only in the modern church” (Vol. I, p.475). We derive no help in the interpretation from the term day; for it is used in various ways in the Bible (p.164).
Thiessen then quotes several passages and names theologians and scientists who held this view in his day. He concludes: “All of these point out the wonderful harmony of the account in Genesis and the findings of geology” (p.165).
Other conservative scholars who have argued for the “pictorial summary” view of the Genesis account of creation include some of the greatest theologians of the past 150 years.
Because there is a lack of consensus among those who maintain a high view of Scripture, this is one of those areas where humble and honest students, scholars, and laymen on all sides would do well to pursue the truth without judging the motives or faithfulness of those whose convictions remain within the probable or possible implications of Scripture. Agreement on what it means to say that the Genesis account of origins is true should be our focus.
