How do beliefs about creation impact the rest of theology?

Response

The ongoing debate between creation and evolution has persisted for years. It often appears as a clash where both sides are shouting without truly listening to each other. The hostility has escalated to the extent that each side automatically rejects the other—evolutionists accuse creationists of disregarding science entirely, while creationists allege that evolutionists are involved in various conspiracies to suppress their perspective. This is not to downplay the arguments of either side as exaggerated, but rather to highlight the lack of genuine dialogue in this verbal conflict.

Due to the challenge of discerning the truth, many Christians consider the creation/evolution debate a secondary matter that does not impact one’s relationship with God through the gospel of Jesus Christ. In many respects, this perspective is accurate. It is easy to become so engrossed in this debate that we lose sight of the primary focus: spreading the gospel. However, similar to other “secondary” issues, one’s beliefs about creation influence their overall theological outlook and, more specifically, their understanding of the gospel. In essence, how one perceives creation significantly shapes their theological perspectives.

Within Christianity, there are various perspectives on the doctrine of creation:

1. Literal 24×6 creation – God created everything in six 24-hour days.

2. Day-Age view – The creation events unfolded as described in Genesis 1, but instead of six 24-hour days, the “days” of creation symbolize unspecified, finite time periods.

3. The Framework view – The days in Genesis 1 serve as a theological framework for narrating the creation of all things.

Throughout most of church history, until the past 150 years, the 24×6 creation view was the prevailing belief within the church. Not all Christians adhered toIn this view, not all who did were committed to it. However, there is no question that this has been the dominant interpretation of Genesis for most of Christian history. We don’t want to believe something simply because it’s traditional and historical, including the 24×6 view of creation; rather, we want to believe a doctrine because it’s supported by the text of Scripture.

In this particular case, many conservative theologians believe that the 24×6 view also has the strongest exegetical support from the text. First and foremost, it’s the natural view one gets from simply reading the text. Additionally, there are other points, such as the way the seven-day pattern set forth during creation week is the pattern for our calendar week (Exodus 20:8-11).

Since the advent of modern science, the 24×6 view of creation has been increasingly abandoned by Christians. The primary reason for this rejection is the fact that the 24×6 view of creation necessitates a “young earth” age of the universe (anywhere from 6,000 to 30,000 years), and the prevailing scientific view is that the universe is billions of years old. The Day-Age view (sometimes called progressive creationism) is an attempt to reconcile the Genesis creation account with an “old earth” view of the age of the universe.

Please note that the Day-Age view still posits that God created all things and it still rejects atheistic (naturalistic) evolution. Nor should the Day-Age view be confused with “theistic evolution,” the view that macroevolution is true but, instead of being guided by blind chance, was guided by the hand of God. Day-Age proponents see themselves as reconciling the biblical account with science. Its opponents see this view as a slippery slope to rejecting the veracity of God’s Word.

Because many Christians view the creation/evolution debate as of secondary importance, there is usually little or no concern over the theological implications of how.

One interprets the Bible’s perspective on creation. In reality, however, what one believes about creation is essential because it pertains to the inerrancy, reliability, and authority of Scripture. The primary concern is why an individual selects a specific viewpoint, in accordance with the Word of God. Holding the belief that the Bible is inspired and inerrant but not literal in the initial two chapters of Genesis is one scenario. Conversely, believing that the Bible is fundamentally incorrect or untrustworthy is another matter. Essentially, the critical aspect of one’s stance on creation is how that perspective aligns with the authority and dependability of the Bible.

If the Bible is deemed unreliable in the first two chapters, what establishes its credibility for the remainder of the text? Typically, critics of the Bible concentrate their criticisms on the initial eleven chapters of Genesis, particularly the creation narrative. The question arises: why do they pinpoint this segment of Scripture? The first eleven chapters of Genesis establish the foundation for the subsequent biblical narrative. Understanding the unfolding storyline of Scripture necessitates familiarity with Genesis 1–11. These chapters contain crucial information that underpins the remainder of the Bible—such as creation, the fall, sin, the inevitability of judgment, the need for a Savior, and the introduction of the gospel. Disregarding these foundational teachings would render the rest of the Bible incomprehensible and insignificant.

However, Bible critics aim to categorize these initial Genesis chapters as ancient Hebrew mythology rather than early historical accounts. The reality is that, compared to creation narratives from other societies, the Genesis version—even in its most literal interpretation—resembles historical narrative more than myth. In the majority of ancient texts, creation is depicted as a conflict among deities. Most creation myths depict the respective culture as the focal point of the religious cosmos. The Genesis narrative, while sharing commonalities with other creation tales, diverges by portraying God as the ultimate Creator who brings order out of chaos.

The sole Sovereign over creation (not one among many gods) and mankind as the pinnacle of His creation, serving as His stewards over creation.

To be sure, there are unanswered questions with the Genesis account, such as the exact date of creation. Nor are there many details about the specific means or methods God might have used. This is why there are debates about the different biblically compatible creation accounts. The purpose of the Genesis account isn’t to provide a complete historical record that would satisfy modern-day historians. The Genesis account was a pre-history of the Jewish people as they were preparing to enter the Promised Land; they needed to know their identity and origins.

Another point to note is that much of Christian theology is founded on the historical accuracy of the Genesis account. The concept of marriage originates from the creation account “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24) and is referenced by Jesus in all three Synoptic Gospels. Our Lord Himself acknowledges that man was created male and female “from the beginning of creation” “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,” (Matthew 19:4). These statements, to be understood, depend on the historical accuracy of the Genesis creation account. Most importantly, the doctrine of salvation hinges on the existence of a literal person named Adam. Twice in the Pauline Epistles (Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15), Paul connects our salvation in Christ with our connection to Adam. In 1 Corinthians 15:21–22, we read, “For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Ch”First Corinthians 15:22 states that all will be made alive.” The entire human race is in a fallen state due to being “in Adam” through natural birth. Similarly, those whom God has chosen for salvation are saved because they are “in Christ” through spiritual birth. The distinction between being in Adam and in Christ is essential for a proper understanding of Christian soteriology, and this distinction loses its significance without a literal Adam from whom all humanity descended.

Paul makes a similar argument in Romans 5:12–21. What sets this passage apart is that it explicitly states, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”, (Romans 5:12). This verse is crucial in the argument for total depravity (the “first plank” in the Calvinist platform), and, like the passage in 1 Corinthians, it relies on a literal Adam to make sense. Without a literal Adam, there is no literal sin and no need for a literal Savior.

Regardless of one’s stance on the doctrine of creation, one point is indisputable within Christianity: God created the heavens and the earth “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”, (Genesis 1:1). While we at Got Questions believe the 24×6 view presents the strongest biblical argument, other views exist that offer valid interpretations within Christian orthodoxy.

It is important to emphasize that the Bible does not teach an atheistic or “Darwinian” view of our origins, either explicitly or implicitly. Therefore, claiming that the creation/evolution debate is unimportant reflects a low view of Scripture. This debate does matter, especially

Because our approach to the Bible concerning origins reflects our approach to it in all other areas. If we lack confidence in the Bible’s account of creation, why would we rely on its teachings about salvation? It follows logically that our beliefs about creation significantly impact the entirety of our theology.