Matt Postiff's Blog

The simple, "Sunday school" answer to the question is, "God created all things." But this question is a little more particular than that:

We have heard that all three members of the Trinity were responsible for creating the universe. That seems to be the case in the Genesis account. But based on Colossians 1:16, it seems specifically only the Son of God, Jesus, created the world. So who created the universe?

In Genesis, the text says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (1:1). The next verse adds, "And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters" (1:2). Verse 26 says, "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness...'" The plural pronouns do tip our thinking in favor of the Trinity, even though the Son is not mentioned specifically here.

Colossians 1:16 focuses specifically upon the Son when it says, "For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth..." Hebrews 1:10 quotes the Father speaking to the Son and saying, "You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands." John 1:3 is also speaking of the Word-made-flesh, Jesus, and it says, "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made."

To add even some more complexity to the question, Psalm 104:30 attributes a creative role to the Holy Spirit: "You send forth Your Spirit, they are created..."

So who created? The theological resolution is that in all their activity, the Trinity perfectly and harmoniously accomplishes the work that the Triune God does. They together as One plan, decree, create, guide, and sustain all things.

Now, this does not mean that all three of their fingers pressed the "create button" at the same moment. Each member of the Triune God does a particular part or function of the overall task. The preposition through in John 1:3 helps us understand this. It was through the Lord Jesus Christ that God created all things. Said another way, God (the Father) created all things but did so through the agency of the Son. Similar wording is found in Col. 1:16: by Him all things were created.

So there is no contradiction or confusion here. All the members of the Trinity were involved in the creation of the universe, each in their own role. We could think of it in terms of a delegated role. The President did such-and-such thing in international affairs, but it may have been actually accomplished through one of his ambassadors, rather than an act that he himself did.

This is like how God creates new spiritual life in a person who becomes a believer. The Father draws (John 6:44); the Spirit gives life (John 6:63); the Son also gives life (John 5:21). The Father foreknows and chooses (1 Peter 1:1); the Spirit washes and regenerates (Titus 3:5-6); and the Son bears our sin in His body (1 Peter 2:24).

I am happy to see the current DBSJ has arrived (vol. 21:2016). The opening pages explain that this issue is a festschrift for Professors William Combs, Robert McCabe, and Bruce Compton. These men have been very helpful in my own theological training and I am glad to see a volume dedicated to them.

The journal also contains a 28-page article that I authored, entitled "Essential Elements of Young Earth Creationism and Their Importance to Christian Theology." There are a lot of very informative articles in this volume by authors who have also been impacted by the three professors. I hope you enjoy the read!

From the archive again, this is a 10-page type-written set of notes from the early 1980s on evolution. It is available as a scanned PDF and a re-typed Word document.

I applaud Ken Ham for reminding us tonight that the human race is ONE race, not many, not black and white, not brown and yellow, but one race, from Adam and Eve. He wrote some helpful comments in his related twitter posts @aigkenham:

There is only one race of people biologically—Adam's race. Everyone has the same skin color, brown. There are no black or white people—all are shades of brown. Next time you fill out a form that asks what race you are, write "Adam's"

Unfortunately, his post was briefly sullied by a commentator named Gary (full name not included here) who says that God cursed Noah's son Ham (not to be confused with Ken Ham), sent him to a tropical climate, and darkened his skin in punishment for what he did to his dad.

I wrote to Gary directly on his Facebook page, and also tried to write a reply to challenge his comment on Ken's post. My reply was disallowed, I believe because either he himself or Facebook quickly deleted his racist comment. That happened, by the way, less than 25 minutes after he made the remark at about 10:30 eastern time. So, I am copying what I wrote here in my blog so that others searching online will be able to find yet another refutation of this deplorable interpretation.

Gary, yours is an old and very bad interpretation of Genesis 9:21-27. This interpretation is especially odious because it was used to justify the enslavement of black people. I challenge you to review the passage and show us from the text (1) that Ham uncovered Noah; (2) that God sent Ham to a tropical climate; (3) that God miraculously darkened Ham's skin; and (4) that God cursed Ham at all. I don't find those assertions anywhere in the text, yet you make all of them in your three lines of false teaching. Here are the facts: (1) Noah became uncovered by himself because he was drunk; (2) The text doesn't say God sent Ham to a tropical climate; (3) The text doesn't say that God darkened Ham's skin; and (4) God did not curse Ham—the text says that God cursed Canaan!

The Christian pastor's job description includes silencing those who are empty talkers and deceivers (Titus 1:11). This is just such a case. Hopefully the truth will embarrass Gary into silence. It is impossible to make an apologetic for racism out of Genesis 9.

I just finished read an interesting, although somewhat technical, book by Dr. John Sanford. He begins by defining the "primary axiom" of biological evolution this way: Life is life because random mutations at the molecular level are filtered through a reproductive sieve acting on the level of the whole organism (page 5). To summarize even further, life comes about because of random mutations filtered through natural selection. Upon that axiom the whole house of evolution stands. Sanford says the axiom is basically uncritically accepted by all evolutionary biologists and population geneticists.

The thesis of the book is that the primary axiom is not true. In the first place, on its surface it doesn't seem plausible because of the massive complexity of the genome and the amount of information it encodes in any living creature. In the second place, the genome of, say, human beings, is degrading over time. This is "entropy" in the genetic makeup. In the third place, the primary axiom cannot create new genetic information within the timescale suggested by evolutionists. Therefore, Sanford writes on p. 139,

We have reviewed compelling evidence that, even when ignoring deleterious mutations, mutation/selection cannot create a single gene within the human evolutionary timescale. When deleterious mutations are factored back in, we see that mutation/selection cannot create a single gene, ever. This is overwhelming evidence against the Primary Axiom. In my opinion this constitutes what is essentially a formal proof that the Primary Axiom is false.

He concludes this way on p. 150:

What is the mystery of the genome? Its very existence is its mystery. Information and complexity which surpass human understanding are programmed into a space smaller than an invisible spec of dust. Mutation/selection cannot even begin to explain this. It should be very clear that our genome could not have arisen spontaneously.

Michael Behe wrote an interesting blurb on the back cover: "In Genetic Entropy, Cornell University researcher John Sanford lifts the rug to see what evolutionary theory has swept under it. He shows that, not only does Darwinism not have answers for how information got into the genome, it doesn't even have answers for how it could remain there."

Scott Buchanan has written a rebuttal and Sanford responds.

The book is Dr. John C. Sanford, Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, FMS Publications, 2008, 226 pages including glossary and index. Multiple editions are available.

That is the question I received. Here is my reply:

Theistic evolution is not eternally fatal, as are other deviations such as a denial of salvation by faith alone or the deity of Christ or His substitutionary work. Those are the "fundamentals."

However, theistic evolution is an error. For a short time I used to hold to that back in college. But I quickly realized the conflict of that position in light of the Scriptures. The plain reading of the text is that God created everything directly, and in a short amount of time (six days). Read Exodus 20:11 if you have any doubts on the latter point. Genesis 1 is very clear that God spoke "and it was so." There was no delay between His speaking and the fulfillment.

Someone who reads the Biblical text as if it allows for theistic evolution gives us a signal that they will read other texts of Scripture that way. What other clear doctrines will they deny? They may not be taking the text very seriously at all. This may (I say "may") lead to symptoms like worldliness.

I recently received a question via email on my creation talk at last January's Preserving the Truth conference. The substance of the question was this: Where did you discover that Tim Keller holds to theistic evolution? Supposedly PCA churches hold to the Westminster Confession which includes creation, though not necessarily a young earth.

This is a good question because my talk slides did not show thorough documentation for the views of each conservative or broader evangelical that were listed. Here are two sources that support my assertion that Keller holds to theistic evolution and the Framework Theory:

• A 14-page paper written by Tim Keller for BioLogos.
• The Confessing Evangelical blog, which interprets Keller the same way I do.

In the paper, Keller's whole purpose is to support the notion that biblical orthodoxy is compatible with evolution. He very approvingly cites Kline's "because it had not rained" argument to support a non-literal reading of Genesis 1. "It means Genesis 1 does not teach that God made the world in six twenty-four hour days. Of course, it doesn't teach evolution either, because it doesn't address the actual processes by which God created human life. However, it does not preclude the possibility of the earth being extremely old" (p. 5). Further, he approves of Kidner's variant on the theistic evolutionary model for the creation of man (p. 10).

I'll grant that I am reading just a little bit between the lines, but what is clear is that Keller believes it is feasible to hold to a literal Adam and Eve while at the same time believing in their creation through evolutionary biological processes. It is not easy to pin Keller down because he believes that whatever view one takes, he should always be open to correction (p. 13).

I appreciate humility and the ability to receive correction. But where God has clearly spoken, this kind of humility can actually blur into unbelief.

The question before us asks what God could do, but really the right question to ask is, "What did God do?" For that, we have to carefully exegete the text of Scripture to determine what it says. As I have been arguing in my "essentials of young earth creationism" series, the plain interpretation of the text inevitably leads to the conclusion that God did create in six days.

But, to the question...Let us forget for a moment what God did do and consider the hypothetical case.

1. In a sense, we could say yes. God can do anything, with the caveat that He can do anything that is in accord with His holy nature. So we could say, hypothetically, God could have used evolution just as well as he could have created everything in a nanosecond or in six 24-hour days.

2. But all things considered, no, God could not have used evolution. If God had used evolution, then certain things would have to be true:

1. Evolution requires many multiplied generations of living things for the necessary changes to occur.
2. Evolution requires many deaths to make progress and improvement.
3. Survival of the fittest requires death of those living things that are not most fit.
4. God would have had to design in death somehow as part of the system for evolution to work.
5. Death would have applied to all species leading up to homo sapiens.
6. Death in homo sapiens would have naturally have continued simply as a result of the design of the entire system based on evolution.
7. But according to Romans 5:12, human death is a result of sin. (I believe all death is a result of sin, but let us just limit our discussion to human death for now).
8. There seems to be a conflict here—is death a natural continuation of the way things always have been, or is it the result of sin? Biblically, only the latter is tenable.
9. But someone might say that death is a result of sin and that death started millions of years ago because sin entered right from the beginning. But then the question is, what sin? Was it the sin of Satan? It could not be the preceding sin of personal beings, since personal beings did not exist until far later in the evolutionary timetable. But if earthlings were punished for Satan's sin, then God's character would be tarnished because He would be punishing the earthly creation for the sin of someone else. This is not just.
10. Or did God allow death to enter, knowing that sin would later enter? Such an "anticipatory punishment" does not seem just either.
11. Or, perhaps God simply designed limited lifespans with death to make evolution work. But this would not be a very good creation. It seems crummy to require death as a tool of "improvement." Such a system is broken from the start. It does not fit the "very good" pronouncement of Genesis 1:31. And it means that "the wages of sin is death" is not the only way that death comes: "the wages of using evolution is death." But sin is always pictured in the Bible as having the wage of death, and death is not a wage of anything else.

In short, if God had used evolution, he would have had to use death to accomplish creation, and that is not "very good" nor very just nor does it harmonize with Romans 5:12 very well. I conclude then that God could not have used evolution. The hypothetical is an impossible hypothetical because it is not in agreement with God's holy nature.

The paleoevangelical blog has an entry titled Genesis 1-2: Before We Made It a Science Textbook. It raises the following point:

"...it might be instructive to consider what people who were committed to the complete reliability and authority of Scripture believed–before we felt compelled to read the text as an explicit refutation of Darwinism."

In my work on young earth creationism, I have not thought of the Bible as a science textbook. Given my science studies, I find the Bible very different than a science textbook. The whole idea that we treat the Bible as a science textbook seems to portray young earth creationists as intellectual simpletons who are stuck on defeating Darwin. But Darwin is only one problem, and YEC folks are presenting a positive case for their view from the Biblical text. Many scientific theories can be proposed on a YEC foundation, but the science part is secondary to the Bible part. It is actually the concordists who are stuck on Darwin, and we who are in the YEC camp wonder why they insist on doing that.

May I suggest this rewriting of paleo's statement: "it might be instructive to consider what people who were committed to the complete reliability and authority of Scripture believed–before we felt compelled to read the text as somehow supporting Darwin."

Finally, given the principles I outlined in the previous two posts, we can draw some conclusions as to the way we should interpret Genesis 1–2.

Beyond reasonable dispute, Genesis 1-2 should be understood as narrative in form. Both Boyd's statistical analysis (p. 675), and McCabe's grammatical analysis (pp. 33–37) demonstrate that this is the case. Since the text is narrative, there are no clues given to the reader that there is any other sense that is plainer than the literal sense.

Some may object that the genre of Genesis is exalted prose. “Exalted” is a code word that leaves room for a figurative interpretation. The problem with this understanding is that it confuses the exalted content for an exalted form. Rather, God through Moses used an essentially normal narrative form to convey exalted content.

A smaller minority may suggest that the genre of Genesis 1–2 is poetry, so that it can be taken figuratively. But the text has none of the markers of poetry, including the Hebrew device of parallelism. Others claim that the text is strictly mythological. This view, however, cannot be squared with a conservative, Biblical view of inspiration and inerrancy.

In the end, it is most natural to understand the text as a narrative. I could refer to it as a structured narrative to make clear that I understand the text was composed in seven units—each unit covering a day of God's creative work—but this does nothing to undermine the genuine narrative form of the text. As a narrative, it should be read as a straightforward, non-parabolic account is intended to be read, and that is literally. This way, the days are understood in their plain sense and young earth creationism naturally comes out of the text.

The other essential elements of YEC really hang in the balance of hermeneutics. Reading the text literally demands that Genesis 1–3, Exodus 20, Genesis 5 and 11, Genesis 6–9, and Romans 5 be taken seriously to express that God created directly in six 24-hour days about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, that death only came after the fall of the real single man Adam, and that some centuries after the creation, the world was destroyed in a global deluge judgment.

The first essential element of young earth creation is literal hermeneutics. Without this kind of approach to the Scripture, there is no way that young earth creationism could emerge from the text. On February 15, I listed nine factors that inform or constrain the meaning of a (Biblical) text. In this post, I want to list a few other thoughts that are involved in the conclusion that literal hermeneutics is not only necessary to the YEC view, but that it is the only right and proper way to interpret the Biblical text.

1. Literalism follows from several Bible examples, such as Neh. 8:8, Num. 12:8; Hab. 2:2; John 16:25, 29; Prov. 8:8-9; Deut. 27:8; and Ezra 4:18. These text show that not only in the use of Scripture but also in its production, a plain, literal meaning was intended by God.
2. A literal approach to the Scripture is implied in the normal use of language to communicate propositions. God created man in His image with the ability to communicate. We expect that when God communicates, He will do so in an understandable, straightforward way.
3. The doctrine of the perspicuity or clarity of Scripture supports a literal approach. The Bible is essentially clear (Ps. 119:105; 2 Peter 3:16). Some things are hard to understand, indeed, but most of the Bible is straightforward to understand. None of it is in code language.
4. Literal interpretation is axiomatic. Without it, communication is impossible. It has to be assumed to even speak about it.

With the previous post, these thoughts lead me inexorably to the conclusion that the plainest sense of Scripture is the right sense. Taking a figure of speech as such, for example, is more plain than the "woodenly literal" interpretation. In terms of the creation debate, a day should be considered a 24-hour day unless it is impossible to take it that way. The conclusions of science are in no wise the "impossible" that rules out a 24-hour day. Remember--the meaning is in the text, not in science.

I recently read an interesting article on the U.S. constitution which provided a modified term that I might start using in my discussions on this topic (see Rachael J. Denhollander, "Restoring the foundations" in Journal of Creation 25[1], 2011, pp. 104-110). It is the term originalism. It is distinguished from "literalism" in the following way. Literalism says that a text should "be interpreted only according to its language, without the context of any outside source, including the historical understanding of the language, to interpret the meaning of the terms" (p. 108). This, the author argues, may appear to be less subjective than a "living constitution" theory, but apart from historical context, the words could only then be interpreted in terms of the present-day context. Such could easily distort the original meaning intended.

So, originalism says that a text "ought to be interpreted according to how it was originally intended to be." Original intent is "the contemporary usage and understanding of the language in the document" (Ibid.).

So perhaps we should use originalism instead of literalism. This may help avoid the pejorative "woodenly literal" epithet that is often heaped upon the conservative's understanding of how to interpret the Bible.

In any case, I hope you understand where I'm coming from and how the creation texts should be interpreted using these rubrics. More specifics in the next post.

The first essential element of young earth creation that I listed last month was literal hermeneutics. Now that I am back and caught up after a very profitable ministry trip to Chile at the end of January, I can continue this series.

Hermeneutics is the science and art of interpretation. It entails certain principles which can be applied to the text of Scripture to arrive at the meaning of the text.

The meaning of a text is informed or constrained by several factors. These include:

1. The text itself. By this, I mean that the meaning is in the text. It is not found outside of the text of Scripture.
2. Author's intent. That is, what the author wanted to convey has an important place in determining the meaning.
3. Stability. The text means what it meant. The meaning does not change with time.
4. Lexicography. Words have meaning, and the dictionary definition may include a wide range of meanings. But only one of those meanings is active in a given context.
5. Grammar. The word forms and arrangement convey meaning.
6. Context. The context in which a text sits not only limits the semantic range of individual words, but also provides boundaries beyond which the meaning of the sentences and paragraphs cannot go.
7. Theology. In reality, this is the contextual factor widened to include all of Scripture and the coherent, non-contradictory system of truth that it conveys.
8. Genre/form. The form of a text affects the meaning. Narrative, poetry, epistolary, and parabolic settings have different effects on the interpretation of a given sub-text.
9. History. The historical and cultural setting are definitely factors in determining the meaning.

Just what are the necessary or indispensable elements of the young earth view? In an earlier post I suggested some things that are not necessary parts of young earth creationism (YEC for short). But what are the necessary elements of YEC? Following is a list of sine qua nons.

1. Hermeneutic: Literal
2. Method: Direct acts of God
3. Duration: Six consecutive 24-hr days
4. Age: 6,000 to 10,000 Years
5. Theology: Literal Adam and Death Only After the Fall
6. Geology: Global Catastrophic Flood

I grant that this list is not as compact as it could be since some of the listed concepts overlap one another or can at least partially imply some of the others. However, I do believe this covers all the bases. The bottom line is that if any of these elements are not part of your belief about creation, then you are not a true subscriber to YEC.

In upcoming posts, I will unpack each of the listed essentials.

[I want to say a word of thanks to Professor Robert McCabe of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary for his helpful interaction in my development of this list. He had some refining discussions with Professor William Barrick of Master's Seminary, Terry Mortenson of AIG, and Professor Mark Snoeberger of DBTS that helped in our development of these essentials. I wanted to acknowledge the participation of these men, but since I don't know if they fully agree with the list as I've constructed it, please don't blame them for the final version!]

This post continues the series derived from my recent talk on the foundational truth of young earth creation in the Bible.

As a person trained in science and engineering (Ph.D., University of Michigan, 2001), I want to encourage you that there is no reason for you to be intimidated by science or scientists.

Scientists are sinners just like the rest of us and suffer the noetic effects of sin. That is, total depravity affects the mind, and all people without exception have this sin-damage to their thinking. In addition, scientists have their own presuppositions. They are not totally objective, though they may claim they are. They are under great pressure to produce new work in their field and to conform to expected norms in their field. This is why you do not see any young earth creation science being done in secular universities. Those universities and their faculty are under the spell of Darwinian evolution and geology. Anyone who bucks that trend will find it very difficult to receive a Ph.D., at least in the natural or physical sciences such as biology, anthropology, geology, etc.

Another thing to remember is that data is often “massaged” to get it where it needs to be. This is of necessity, given the volumes of data and the interpretation that is required to boil it down and make sense of it. Such activity is not usually done with malicious intent, but presuppositions and hopes for the data to turn out favorably, etc. can tend to skew the results. Witness “Climategate” at University of East Anglia and the alleged illegal activities with respect to FOIA requests, not to mention the massaging of data to get it to match expected trends from other data.

Science does not operate in a vacuum. There are forces that affect it which are not always consciously recognized or acknowledged by scientists.

The sum of the matter is that Christians do not need to be intimidated by scientists as if they are a pure breed doing pure research that is untainted by anything. Scientists are not untouchable. Science is not the ultimate authority; God is.

The PowerPoint slides for my Preserving the Truth talk on young earth creationism are available here.

The Bible is very clear in what it says regarding creation:

1. “Ah, Lord GOD! Behold, You have made the heavens and the earth by Your great power and Your outstretched arm!”
2. “And God said…and it was so…” (8x, more or less)
3. “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.”
4. “For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.”
5. “Just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men…”
6. “When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age…the son of Adam, the son of God.”
7. “…by the word of God…the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.”
8. “God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.”

There can be no debate about this--the Bible says those things very clearly. The debate comes when we try to answer the question, “What does the Bible mean by what it says?”

To answer that question, let me first state that I believe that we should derive our understanding as directly from the Biblical text as possible. I will give some justification for that belief in a future post. Given that, then it is easy to specify what we should believe about God's work in creation:

1. God created everything; there was no spontaneous generation.
2. Creation was a miracle, vis-à-vis anti-supernaturalism.
3. Creation was a direct act of God; no evolutionary means.
4. Creation took six days.
5. The first man Adam was a real man.
6. Creation was recent (thousands of years).
7. Creation was followed by a global catastrophic flood.
8. Creation was perfect (no sin or death).

This question sits in the middle of the debate over the age of the earth. The whole notion of young earth creationism is attacked because of the creation's appearance of age. How do we explain the appearance of age?

1. God created a mature creation. Trees were bearing fruit. Animals and Adam and Eve were in their adult state, ready to reproduce and fill the earth. Sunlight, moonlight, and starlight were shining on the earth to demarcate day from night and to mark months, seasons, and years.
2. God cursed sinful mankind after the Fall in Genesis 3. The serpent was cursed; the woman was cursed in childbearing and in her relationship to her husband; and the man was cursed in his working of the ground. Both man and woman began to physically degrade toward their impending death.
3. God catastrophically flooded the entire earth. The effect was a rearrangement of topography, the death and fossilization of millions of animals, the destruction of massive amounts of organic material, and so forth.

The earth and creation appears old because it has been through a lot. Perhaps an illustration would help. Imagine a young man or woman 25 years old. They are in the height of physical and mental condition. They are handsome and beautiful people. They are not infants, and so appear to be their age. But then the curse of cancer strikes. It takes a massive toll on their bodies. The treatment doesn't help to keep them looking young. And then they get into a massive car accident that leaves them maimed for the rest of their lives. Is it any wonder there is an appearance of great age even if they are still only in their mid twenties?

The Institute for Creation Research has posted a longer answer to this question by Al Mohler. It is here.

One of the main points of my talk at the Preserving the Truth Conference will be that there are certain "non negotiables" that must be believed for one to be a Young Earth Creationist. These are the sine qua nons or indispensable elements regarding the doctrine of creation. I will go over them in upcoming posts. In this post, I want to cover a number of items that are not necessary to believe regarding young earth creationism. They are:

1. To believe in an exact age of the earth, “6,000 years”, or “Ussher’s Chronology”. Dogmatism on the precise age is not necessary as long as the age is “young.”
2. To believe in the water vapor canopy theory.
3. To believe that the second law of thermodynamics started at the Fall.
4. To believe that the speed of light has changed or that the universe is a particular (small) size or that time dilation accounts for the appearance of age.
5. To believe that radioactive half-lives have changed.
6. To believe that angels were created at a particular point in the creation week.
7. To believe that God only created fresh water and not salt water.
8. To believe a particular view on the initial light source used during the first three days.
9. To believe a particular identification of “evening and morning” in the six days.
10. To know the answer of every possible question that may be raised about creationism.
11. To abandon true science or be intellectually backward.

That is to say, you do not have to believe a certain way on these particular questions. Multiple answers or hypotheses are consistent with young earth creationism.

Lord willing, I will speak on Friday January 7 in afternoon sessions of the Preserving the Truth Conference. It should be an interesting conference, with speakers Kevin Bauder, Bruce Compton, Dave Doran, and Mark Minnick, among the other younger generation of fundamentalists Chris Anderson, Scott Aniol, and Michael Riley.

My assigned topic is Young Earth Creationism. I have titled the talk "Young Earth Creationism: A Foundational Truth that Must be Preserved."

Over the next few weeks, I hope to post the slides along with a few blog entries on the topic of creationism.

I have posted my review of Coming to Grips with Genesis on our church website. You can read the PDF here. There will also be a snippet of that review on amazon.com. The full review is to appear in the Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, volume 14, 2009. Information on the journal is available here.