ICBI Response to Scripture & Young-Earth Creationism
At the second summit of the ICBI, the issue of the age of the universe and Earth was discussed. Several papers were presented. Long deliberations followed. The conclusion of ICBI theologians and scholars present were that inerrancy requires belief in creation but not in 24-hour creation days.
Furthermore, Dr. James Sawyer of Western Seminary pointed out that when the ICBI was formed in 1978, “the founding membership held over 30 discrete positions with reference to the interpretation of Genesis 1. Only one of these positions involved a 6-day recent creation.”
That quote was taken from an old bible.org article that no longer exists, however found one with more detail:
- When in 1978 the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy was formed, Henry Morris was present and lobbying to have a statement of recent creationism inserted into the doctrinal statement. The founding council, rather than accede to Morris’ position polled the founding membership consisting of pastors scholars and theologians who affirmed the doctrine of Inerrancy and discovered, despite the popular acceptance of the position, the founding membership held over thirty discrete positions with reference to the interpretation of Genesis one. Only one of these positions involved a six-day recent creation. (Hardening of the Categories: Why Theologians Have Opposed "New Knowledge")
- First, while it is true that all the theologians and OT scholars meeting at the ICBI agreed to a printed statement that implied that inerrancy does not require belief in 24-hour days of creation, it is not true that all such ICBI scholars reject the literal day interpretation. Though certainly the young-Earthers were a small minority, the fact that there were long deliberations after the three papers (one of which was written by a young-Earther, Dr Henry Morris) shows that young-Earthers were there raising their voices against the old-Earth majority.
In fact, Norman Geisler points out:
- [T]he founders and framers of the contemporary inerrancy movement (ICBI) of the 1970s and 80s explicitly rejected the Young Earth view as being essential to belief in inerrancy. They discussed it and voted against making it a part of what they believed inerrancy entailed, even though they believed in creation, the "literal" historical-grammatical view of interpreting the Bible, a literal Adam, and the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis.
Let me put it this way. If this same council declared that belief in an old Earth was incompatible with Scripture, then I’d seriously consider my position as being an invalid literal interpretation of Genesis 1. The weight of this authority in my own eyes would outweigh my opinion – such that I’d believe I must be wrong if they said Scripture demanded a young Earth belief.
Me, one individual, versus a whole council consisting a great many respected evangelicals – the ICBI reads like a who’s who of many prominent conservative theologians. SO, if they declared that YEC was the only acceptable literal interpretation, then I’d concede that I am in all probability wrong in my interpretation.
BUT, ICBI in fact declared that an old Earth was an acceptable and consistent literal reading. Radmacher supported this. Archer support it. Geisler also supports it – further noting that much earlier on at the turn of the 19th century theologians who stressed the inerrancy of Scripture like B. B. Warfield, Charles Hodge and J. Gresham Machen did not accept YEC.
@Jac, I'd seriously suggest you reconsider hammering young Earth belief as a criteria of Scriptural orthodoxy.
As for those who believe in an old Earth — whatever your reasoning — you can be greatly reassured that you stand squarely upon solid Scriptural foundations backed by many powerful conservative Biblical scholars. Despite what your pastor might say, brothers and sisters who accuse otherwise... you easily have a greater weight of authority than those who normally appeal to Answers in Genesis.
___________________
Post-note: My next post shall be my last. Yay!