By: Shafer Parker

I love it when great, godly men get together to talk about great, godly themes. Case in point, a discussion about creation between Tony Reinke, of The Gospel Coalition, and theologian D. A. Carson that you can either listen to or read here. To kick things off Carson mentions that about 50 years ago apologist Francis Schaeffer wrote a book called Genesis in Space and Time, a copy of which I remember purchasing not long after it was first published (please, no jokes about my advanced age). As Carson recalls, in the book Schaeffer raises a question that Carson says he has “increasingly come to see as fundamental.” In this blog I want to report the question that Carson finds so essential, along with Schaeffer’s answer, but I will do so primarily for the purpose of raising a related question of my own. (Hey, jumping to the end to read my question is cheating. Anyway, you won’t get its significance if you don’t read the article first.)

Here is Schaeffer’s question as reported by Carson: “What is the least that we must make of Genesis 1-11 in order for the rest of the Bible to be coherent and true?” Having read the question, it seems to me that on some level all Bible-believing Christians ought to be a little surprised that either Carson or Schaeffer would raise it. After all, both men are well-known for defending the Bible as the inerrant, infallible Word of God. How, then, do either of them justify appearing to minimize the importance of the book’s opening chapters?

One might as well ask, what is the least foundation that would support the erection of a modern skyscraper as it soars a half-mile or more into the air. In such cases one doesn’t boast of minimums, but rather of underpinnings that are designedly more than adequate for the task, knowing that since each new height is literally a journey into the unknown, too much foundation is likely to be proven just barely enough. I should think, then, that to proclaim the most profound truth ever put in words—“in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself” (II Cor. 5:19)—one would seek for a theological and historical foundation that is undoubtedly adequate to support the weight of the claim being made. But for three centuries and more, too many Christians have willingly diminished, if not outright rejected Genesis 1-11, relegating these foundational chapters to the dustbin of Jewish myths and legends.

GIVE TODAY!

Now back to Schaeffer and Carson, both men are aware of the theological world’s tendency to undermine the gospel’s foundation by rejecting the first 11 chapters of Genesis. And for the sake of the gospel, as well as harmony in the church, both men are determined to salvage something in order to shore up all that follows in the rest of the Scriptures. Hence Schaeffer’s question, along with his suggested answers, as follows:

1.) God comes first. (Gen. 1:1 “In the beginning, God. . . .”)

2.) God speaks. (Gen. 1:3 “And God said . . . .”)

3.) God made everything. (Gen. 1:31 “And God saw everything that he had made. . . .”)

4.) There is one God, who is good, and He made everything good (Gen. 1:31). Genesis 3 also speaks to the origin of evil.

5.) Human accountability arises from the doctrine of creation. Because God is creator, He also has the right to judge mankind (Gen. 3:8-24).

6.) Genesis gives us the first glimmer of divine persons within the godhead; Genesis 1:26 (“Let us make man in our image. . . .”) hints that God is One, but not simply One. John 1:1 is a direct outgrowth of this text in Genesis.

7.) Human beings are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27).

8.) Human beings are made to be stewards of God’s creation (Gen. 1:26-30).

9.) The creation of man as male and female, along with sufficient reference to their complementary differences and responsibilities (Gen. 2:18).

10.) The grace of God as first expressed in Gen. 3:15, with the foretold victory over Satan by the “Seed of the Woman.”

11.) The concept of rest on the seventh day is bound up with God’s rest on the seventh day of creation (Gen. 2:2-3; Ex. 20:11; 3117).

12.)The repeated testimony in Scripture that God’s greatness is displayed in His creation (Ps. 19:1-6)

Remember, these are 12 answers to the question, “What is the least that we must make of Genesis 1-11 in order for the rest of the Bible to be coherent and true?” And to give you a single example of what Schaeffer and Carson had in mind (which I could literally multiply by hundreds, if not thousands, of times) ask yourself, what did Paul mean when he told the Corinthian Christians, “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (I Cor. 15:22)? The answer, of course, depends on knowing and believing the Bible’s description of Adam as the progenitor and first trend-setter of the human race.

In other words, death came to the race only because our first forefather disobeyed God when he ate the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:6; Rom. 5:12-14). I know you see it but let me put it into words anyway. The fact is you can never understand the significance of what it means to be in Christ apart from the New Testament’s affirmation of what it means to have been in Adam when he sinned so long ago. Not only is this true, it is so obviously true that one is moved to ask, how does anyone who calls himself a Christian theologian not see it?

Now, having shown why Schaeffer and Carson are so anxious to find a way to connect Gen. 1-11 with the rest of Scripture, let me ask a related question; If we are agreed that some parts of Genesis 1-11 are essential for Biblical coherence, what gives anyone the right to decide that any part of those chapters is non-essential? Consider this, not one of those “essential” affirmations as listed by Carson exists independent of its context. Logically, if you can prove that the context is filled with falsehood, you will suddenly find that there is no foundation for believing anything it says. On the other hand, if such godly scholars as Schaeffer and Carson are firm that at least 12 essential truths for New Testament Christianity find their origins in Gen. 1-11, why not just accept that the context is as true as the truth it contains, and thus believe this entire portion of Scripture is, like the rest, the Word of God?

Other Related Topics