December 1999 - 19:93-94
In several past issues of Reason & Revelation, you have discussed and refuted attempts by Christians to justify belief in an old Earth via the Gap Theory and/or the Modified Gap Theory. I recently heard of yet another theoryknown as the Non-World Viewthat supposedly permits Bible believers to accept the idea of an ancient Earth. Have you ever heard of the Non-World View? What does it say, and can a faithful Christian believe it?
Imagine the dilemma of Bible believers who have tried almost everything imaginable to force the evolutionary geologic age-system into the biblical recordyet without any apparent success. Perhaps they advocated the Day-Age Theory, but soon realized that it proved to be indefensible from a biblical standpoint. Perhaps they then moved their allegiance to the standard Gap Theory, but recognized that it also was unscriptural. Eventually, perhaps, they attempted a defense of John Claytons Modified Gap Theoryuntil it, too, collapsed under the scrutiny of correct biblical exegesis. What to do? If a Bible believer does not wish to abandon completely his faith in God and simply become an out-and-out evolutionist, yet at the same time abjectly refuses to accept at face value the biblical testimony regarding the age of the Earth, what option is left? There appears to be only onethe so-called Non-World View.
The Non-World View dates from the 1972 publication of A Christian View of Origins by Donald England (yes, this is the same Donald England mentioned in the question above for his advocacy and defense of the Multiple Gap Theory). In essence, the Non-World View represents a refusal to get involved by suggesting:
There is no world view presented in Genesis 1. I believe the intent of Genesis 1 is far too sublime and spiritual for one to presume that it teaches anything at all about a cosmological world view. We do this profound text a great injustice by insisting that there is inherent within the text an argument for any particular world view (England, 1972, p. 124, emp. added).
In other words, this is a compromise for the person who refuses to accept the Genesis account of creation as written but who cannot seem to find a reasonable alternative. In his book, Dr. England admitted that from a straightforward reading of the Genesis account one gets the general impression from the Bible that the earth is young, and that it is true that Biblical chronology leaves one with the general impression of a relatively recent origin for man (1972, p. 109). But he also made it clear that he had absolutely no intention of accepting such biblical implicationssince they disagree with science.
Having painted himself into a theological corner, so to speak, the only way out was simply to throw up his hands and, with a sigh of relief, view Genesis as containing no world view whatsoever. As John Clayton (who strongly recommends the Non-World View) has suggested:
By Non-World we mean that we dont accept any God-limiting position on how we interpret Genesis. We dont limit our comprehension of time, space, or process in any way Biblically; and do this unlimiting on the basis that thats what God intended....
If Chapter 1 is not a detailed historical account, how do we fit the fossil record to it? The Non-World View says we dont. If we are to speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent we wont succumb to the pressure to make it fit. Since the Bible doesnt mention dinosaurs, bats, amoeba, bacteria, DNA virus [sic], sea plants, algae, fungus [sic], etc., we wont attempt to match them. There are a few forms we can match, but only a few out of the millions. The Hebrew words used in Genesis do not cover whole phyla of animals but they are reasonably specific. If we take a Non-World View, this doesnt bother us because we are only interested in Gods message to man, not in satisfying mans curiosity.
The Non-World View also finds no necessity in dealing with mens arguments on the scientific theories of creation and age. There is no necessity to argue about the big bang, steady state, or irtron theory of origins; nor is there any need to hassle about whether the Earth is 6, 6,000 or 6 billion years old. Genesis 1:1 says only that God did it! That is the purpose. It is not the purpose to state how or when (Clayton, 1977, 4:6-8, emp. in orig.).
A RESPONSE AND REFUTATION
The careful reader soon will realize that this is indeed the compromise to end all compromises. With the Non-World View, a person may believe as much, or as little, as he wants in regard to the Genesis account of creation. If the person who holds to this view is challenged with a relevant portion of Scripture, he or she may reply simply, Oh, that passage doesnt have any world view in it. The convenient thing, of course, is that it does not matter how forceful the passage may be, whether it comes from the Old Testament or the New, which biblical writer may have penned it, or even if Christ Himself spoke it. With the Non-World View, everything becomes completely subjective.
The beauty of such a position, according to John Clayton, is that it is not God-limiting (1977, p. 6). Even though when one reads the creation account he gets the general impression that man has been here only a short while and that the Earth is relatively young, and even though the Lord Himself stated in Mark 10:6 that man and woman have been here from the beginning of the creation, all of that becomes irrelevant. With a wave of the hand, Genesis 1 means little to nothing. In fact, it might as well not have been written, for it simply has no world view in it at all.
Yet God went to great lengths to explain what was done on day one, what was done on day two, and so on. He specifically told Moses that He took six days to do it. Then He set the Sabbath day as the Jews remembrance of His creative acts on those days. If God said in the beginning and in six days the Lord created, that is a time element. Jesus Himself said that, from the beginning of the creation, male and female made He them (Mark 10:6). That, too, is a time element. While it may not give an exact day and hour, it says much. It says man was on the Earth from the beginning. That automatically rules out both the idea of an ancient Earth and those compromising theories intended to support such an idea (e.g., the Day-Age Theory, Gap Theory, Modified Gap Theory, Multiple Gap Theory, etc.). God has indicatedin a way we can understandwhat He wanted us to know about the time element. When He wrote that He created the heavens, the earth, the seas, and all that in them is in six days, does that sound anything like a Non-World view?
Man may not understand completely the how of creation, but it is present nevertheless. When the Scriptures say, And God said, Let there be light and there was lightthat is how. When the Scriptures say, And God said, Let the earth put forth grass, and the earth brought forth grassthat is how. The how is by the power of God (cf. Hebrews 1:3 wherein the writer declared that it is God Who upholds all things by the word of his power).
Granted, the text of Genesis 1 is sublime and spiritual. But it also is historical. Jesus Christ Himself said so (Matthew 19:4). So did Paul (1 Corinthians 15:45; Romans 8:22; 1 Timothy 2:13). That should settle the matter. God said that He did itGod created. God said how He did itby the word of his power. God said when He did itin the beginning. The inquiring reader eventually will come to realize just how much that includes, and just how much it excludes. The only world view left is the perfect onethat of Genesis 1.
The Non-World View is a subtly presented yet flagrant attack on Genesis 1. It impeaches the testimony of the Old and New Testament writers and even impugns the integrity of the Lord Himself. For what purpose? What ultimate good does it accomplish? It merely compromises the truth while leaving open the way for any and all viewpoints on creation, whether founded in Scripture or not. Furthermore, surely the question begs to be asked: If Genesis 1 is not Gods world view, then what is?
Clayton, John N. (1977), The Non-World View of Genesis, Does God Exist?, 4:6-8, June.
England, Donald (1972), A Christian View of Origins (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Copyright © 1999 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may be copied, on the condition that it will not be republished in print unless otherwise stated below, and will not be used for any commercial purpose, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original written content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. Further, documents may not be copied without source statements (title, author, journal title), and the address of the publisher and owner of rights, as listed below.
For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
Phone (334) 272-8558