Nowhere does God’s Word state you have to believe is six literal days of creation or that the earth is just six-thousand years old to be saved. There are Christians who believe in millions of years and Christians who accept evolution. If they profess Christ as their Savior, and have a personal relationship with Him, we should not question their salvation.
In fact, does the Bible state you must believe in any of these things to be saved?
- Jesus walked on water
- Jesus fed thousands as a miracle
- Jesus healed the blind, deaf, and mute
- The Israelites’ shoes and clothes didn’t wear out in the desert
- Jonah was in a fish for three days
- Jesus was born of a virgin
The list could go on and on. The answer to each question is “no”—the Bible doesn’t say a person has to believe those accounts to be saved. So, does that mean the list doesn’t matter then? Of course not, as these accounts are plainly taught in Scripture when you take the text as written. Is it important to believe in the list? To reject them is to undermine biblical authority. It ultimately opens the door to reject anything in Scripture.
Take this example about cults: Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and other cults say they believe in Jesus, too. But because they don’t hold to the Bible as being supreme in its authority, these cults appeal to man’s ideas, which takes them away from the clear teachings recorded in God’s Word. If it were not for the authority of Scripture being a first-tier issue, the Jesus of the Bible couldn’t really be known, which opens the door to creating cultic teachings. In other words, if you can’t trust one part of the Bible about who Jesus is and what he’s done, why would you trust the other parts of the Bible about who Jesus is and what he’s done (e.g., John 3:16)? Biblical authority matters!
Where’s the Line?
So, where do you draw the line between what’s vital and what is not? Well, consider this verse:
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16).
Taking the Bible naturally, as written, according to the literature and its context, is of great importance. Biblical authority is indeed a first-order issue.
What would be a litmus test to determine if someone is undermining biblical authority? Well, one way is to see if the person is working from the actual words of the text (exegesis) or if the person is taking ideas outside of Scripture and bringing them into the text and interpreting the words (eisegesis).
It is true that in the church, people have different views of eschatology, modes of baptism, speaking in tongues, the sabbath day, etc. But all these issues involve people arguing primarily from Scripture to justify their positions, not basing their ideas on influences outside Scripture.
When it comes to Genesis, all the different views within the church, such as day-age theory, framework hypothesis, theistic evolution, local flood, and so on, have one thing in common. Every one of these positions involves taking man’s belief from outside the Bible regarding millions of years (based on the religion of naturalism) and trying to fit old ages into Scripture. Many of these views involve adding biological evolution and astronomical evolution into Scripture. This approach uses eisegesis, not exegesis.
Furthermore, adding millions of years into Scripture blames God (not our sin) for death, suffering, and disease (as seen in the fossil record), since the claim is that millions of years (based on what is referred to as “the fossil record”) precedes man and his fall. The concept of millions of years is an attack on the character of Christ, and it undermines the gospel.
I assert that those who do not hold to a literal Genesis (i.e., six literal days, young earth, Adam made from dust and Eve from his side, global flood, etc.) do so because they have been influenced by what the world is teaching regarding origins. This view permeates seminaries and Bible colleges, which produce most of our pastors. It is an attempt to add ideas into Scripture and force an interpretation on Genesis that undermines biblical authority.
Most churches and Christian institutions do not have a statement of faith that includes details regarding Genesis. Most don’t state that it’s important to believe in a real Adam and that he was made from dust and Eve created from his side—and that their union is the foundation for marriage. Most statements also don’t insist that a Christian should believe in six literal creation days or even a global flood.
Part of our faith as Christians is to believe what God said and defend His Word against attacks that demean, dilute, or oppose it.
To view the full text, how to respond, and more, please visit Letter from Ken Ham (March 2, 2020)
