Why Dispensationalists Can't Argue for a Young Earth and a Global Flood

American Vision ^ | 1/16/2007 | Gary DeMar

[topcat54]

Michael Ruse, Professor of Philosophy at Florida State University, devotes a chapter to the subject of eschatology in his book The Evolution-Creation Struggle.¹ He believes that the interpretive methodology of dispensational premillennialism is inexorably linked to the way its advocates defend their position on creation. Ruse isn’t the first to point this out. I’ve been making the same claim for years. It’s about to catch up with young-earth/global flood creationsists.

Consider the following comments on Matthew 24:34 from Henry M. Morris, a dispensationalist and a founding father of the modern-day creationist movement. The following comments on “this generation” come from his creationist themed Defender’s Study Bible which was first published in 1995: “ The word ‘this’ is the demonstrative adjective and could better be translated ‘that generation.’ That is, the generation which sees all these signs (probably starting with World War I) shall not have completely passed away until all these things have taken place” (1045). Morris describes the use of “this” as a “demonstrative adjective,” but it is better designated as a “near demonstrative” adjective identifying what generation will see the signs. In Greek and English, the near demonstrative (this) is contrasted with the distant demonstrative (that). Greek language specialists make this very point:

Greek grammars and lexicons recognize two demonstratives: near and distant. The near demonstrative, as the name denotes, points to someone or something “near,” in close proximity. They appear as the singular word “this” and its plural “these.” The distant demonstratives, as their name suggests, appear as “that” (singular), or “those” (plural).²

The near demonstrative “this” always refers to something contemporary, as the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature makes clear: “[T]his, referring to something comparatively near at hand, just as ekeinos [that] refers to something comparatively farther away.”³ Prior to his comments in his Defender’s Study Bible, Morris wrote the following extended comments on Matthew 24:34 in his Creation and the Second Coming :

In this striking prophecy, the words “this generation” has the emphasis of “that generation.” That is, that generation—the one that sees the specific signs of His coming—will not completely pass away until He has returned to reign as King.⁴ Now if the first sign was, as we have surmised, the first World War, then followed by all His other signs, His coming must indeed by very near⁵—even at the doors! There are only a few people still living from that⁶ generation. I myself was born just a month before the Armistice was signed on November 11, 1918. Those who were old enough really to know about that first World War—“the beginning of sorrows”—would be at least in their eighties now. Thus, we cannot be dogmatic, we could very well now be living in the very last days before the return of the Lord.”⁷

Matthew 24:33 tells us what audience Jesus had in view: “so, you too, when YOU see all THESE things, recognize that He is near, right at the door.” It is obvious, and without any need for debate, that the first “you” refers to those who asked the questions that led to Jesus’ extended remarks (Matt. 24:2–4). Jesus identifies those who will “see all these things” by once again using “you.” If Jesus had a future generation in mind, He could have eliminated all confusion by saying, “even so THEY too, when THEY see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, THAT generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” Instead, Henry Morris and others have to massage the text to support a future tribulation period.⁸

Then there is the problem of the way Morris understands the meaning of “last days” in the notes found in his Defender’s Study Bible. He states that “this ‘last days’ prophecy of Joel was fulfilled at Pentecost only in a precursive sense” (1179). Even though Peter says that the events at Pentecost are a fulfillment of what Joel predicted (Joel 2:28–32)—“this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel” Acts 2:17)—Morris argues that “its complete fulfillment must await the time of the end. . . . Thus Peter’s statement: ‘This is that’ (Acts 2:16) should be understood in the sense of ‘This is like that’” (1179).⁹ What implications does this have for the young earth-global flood interpretive methodology that is defended by dispensationalists as the most literal interpretation of the Bible?

Ruse demonstrates that evolutionists are beginning to pay attention to the hermeneutical model used by young earth-global flood creationists and how inconsistent they are in their interpretive methodology. How will we ever convince skeptics of the truthfulness of the Bible when it is distorted to defend interpretations where “this” means “that,” and “this is that” actually means “this is like that”? An evolutionist like Ruse may rightly argue that if Morris can make “this generation,” with its obvious first-century meaning, “have the emphasis” of “that generation” (distant future), then why can’t the time element of Genesis 1 (the use of yom= a 24-hour day) “have the emphasis” of long ages of time? Maybe the days of Genesis 1 are just like 24-hour days, given dispensational hermeneutics. If time indicators in the NT are not interpreted literally, then why must they be interpreted literally in the OT? The dispensationalists have a big problem on their hands, and so do the creationist ministries that tolerate their eschatological hermeneutic.

---

1. Michael Ruse, The Evolution-Creation Struggle (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005). In the Acknowledgments, Ruse writes: “At a more personal level, I have gained much from the friendship, insights, writings, and criticisms of Ronald Numbers [author of The Creationists] and David Livingstone [co-editor of Evolution, Science, and Scripture]. They showed me that my story would be radically incomplete without sensitivity to the significance of millennial thinking” (319).

2. Cullen I K Story and J. Lyle Story, Greek To Me: Learning New Testament Greek Through Memory Visualization (New York: Harper, 1979), 74. “Sometimes it is desired to call attention with special emphasis to a designated object, whether in the physical vicinity or the speaker or the literary context of the writer. For this purpose the demonstrative construction is used. . . . For that which is relatively near in actuality or thought the immediate demonstrative [houtos] is used. . . . For that which is relatively distant in actuality or thought the remote demonstrative [ekeinos] is used.” (H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament [New York; Macmillan, 1957], 127–128, sec. 136).

3. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 4 th ed. (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1952), 600.

4. There is nothing in Matthew 24 that says Jesus is going to return to earth to reign as king.

5. Why does “near” mean “even at the doors” for Morris in the twentieth century, but it did not mean “near” in the first century?

6. Notice how Morris uses the far demonstrative “that” to refer to a generation in the past. How would he have described the generation in which he was living? Obviously with the near demonstrative “this” to distinguish it from “that” past generation.

7. Henry Morris, Creation and the Second Coming (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1991), 183. Morris died on February 25, 2006 at the age of 87.

8. The latest example is found in Tim Demy and Gary Stewart, 101 Most Puzzling Bible Verses: Insight into Frequently Misunderstood Scriptures (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2007), 105–106. There is no mention of the audience reference in Matthew 24:33, just that “The phrases ‘this generation’ and ‘these things’ are linked together by context and grammar in such a way that Jesus must be speaking of a future generation.” This tells us nothing without an actually discussion of the grammar and the audience reference.

9. Thomas Ice argues in a similar way: “But this is [like] that which was spoken by the prophet Joel.” He tries to explain the addition of “like” by claiming that “The unique statement of Peter (‘this is that’) is in the language of comparison and similarity, not fulfillment.” (Thomas Ice, “Acts,” in Tim LaHaye, ed. Prophecy Study Bible [Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000], 1187).

---

Gary DeMar is president of American Vision and the author of more than 20 books.

---

Permission to reprint granted by American Vision P.O. Box 220, Powder Springs, GA 30127, 800-628-9460.

[P-Marlowe]

You’re not seriously trying to equate DeMar’s legitimate criticism of Morris’ scholarship with your backhanded slam of DeMar, now are you?

Sure, why not?

[topcat54]

Sure, why not?

I guess I expected better. Was your issue that DeMar criticized Morris' scholarship, or that he criticized Morris period?

[P-Marlowe]

Was your issue that DeMar criticized Morris' scholarship, or that he criticized Morris period?

If you read my first post you would know that my issue with DeMar was that he seemed to think he could somehow convince a skeptic of the truth of scripture using logic and persuasive argumentation.

[P-Marlowe]

Interesting article. Dispensationalists are reaping what they've sown.

There is no reason to believe that "the space of six days," the language found in the Westminster Standards, means anything but the obvious and normal meaning of the words. There are two issues here to consider. First, the interpretation of the days of creation as being long ages or normal days separated by long ages is a position which arose long after the drafting of the Westminster Confession. To allow men who hold such views today to say that they are in full agreement with the Westminster Standards is to stretch the language of the confession beyond the intent of its authors. As if to remove any doubt as to their understanding of the days of creation, the Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 120 states that one of the reason we are to work six days every week but not the seventh is "the example of God, who in six days made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day."

Second, the language of the confession is a phrase used by John Calvin to oppose Augustine's teaching of instantaneous creation. The Westminster divines were learned men who were no doubt aware of Calvin's usage of the phrase when they chose to use it themselves. In Augustine's position, the six days of creation are a literary device with no literal chronological significance. If the phrase "the space of six days" means anything, it means that the days of creation refer to a literal space of time as opposed to being a non-chronological literary framework. Men who today hold to a literary framework view of Genesis one usually believe in creation over long ages and not in instantaneous creation. Still they agree with Augustine that the days of creation are a non-literal teaching device and not six days in an historical narrative. In this sense, men who today hold to a literary framework view of Genesis one hold to the same general position which Calvin argued against using the very words "the space of six days." To allow literary framework men to say that they are in full agreement with the confession is to go beyond stretching our confessional language. It is to allow the language of the confession to encompass a form of the very position which that language, as previously used by Calvin, was meant to exclude. If we allow this, then how can we say with any consistency that our doctrinal standards actually define our doctrine? We must not become post-modernists for whom language and standards have no fixed meaning.

Grover Gunn

[topcat54]

If you read my first post you would know that my issue with DeMar was that he seemed to think he could somehow convince a skeptic of the truth of scripture using logic and persuasive argumentation.

a) you misconstrue DeMar's words, and b) Morris’ explanation of the text is indefensible.

DeMar never said that only by logic and persuasive argumentation will a person become convinced of the truth. Reading everything he’s written should convince you that is not his view. On the other hand, the apostle Paul used logic and persuasive argumentation in many instances to convince unbelievers on the truth of the gospel, all the time recognizing that it was the Holy Spirit working through his words to bring about God’s salvation.

What you seem to wish to ignore in this entire discussion is that when Christians say silly things in defense of the gospel, they cast the Word of God and their Savior in a rather poor light. If a skeptic/unbeliever can see through the exegetical gymnastics that folks like Morris need to construct in order to make the Bible fit their view of the future, then they ought to be taken to task, just as DeMar has done.

If you wish to defend the indefensible, then have at it. But don’t read more into Demar’s comments than are truly there.

[topcat54]

I’m a six-day creationist ala the Westminster Confession position that you quoted. I fail to see your point in offering Grover Gunn’s comment.

[P-Marlowe]

I’m a six-day creationist ala the Westminster Confession position that you quoted.

So does that mean that you hold to a literal creation in the span of six days. (Six spins of the earth in temporal time)?

I fail to see your point in offering Grover Gunn’s comment.

The comment was directed to Dr. Eck. If DeMar can defend the six day creation, young earth and global flood using non-dispensationist hermenutics, then by golly he should write a book about it. Instead he gloms onto the Skeptic's argument as a means of trashing dispensationism rather than refuting the Skeptic's arguments about the young earth and global flood using his own non-dispensationist hermenutics.

DeMar rags on his fellow Christian for appearing to be inconsistent while at the same time offering no arguments of his own that would stand his own test of consistency. In other words the global flood and young earth subject is merely a platform for his denunciation of dispensationism. What a surprise coming from DeMar (/sarc).

If DeMar is a young earth creationist and a global flood believer, one certainly can't tell it from this essay.

[topcat54]

So does that mean that you hold to a literal creation in the span of six days. (Six spins of the earth in temporal time)?

That's what that means.

… then by golly he should write a book about it. Why, just to satisfy your views on what constitutes appropriate commentary? For the record, you can search the American Vision web site and see the creationist activities of DeMar and his colleagues, including the Worldview Super Conferences they offer which often have speakers/topics on creationism.

All this info is easy enough to find out if one were interested.

DeMar rags on his fellow Christian for appearing to be inconsistent while at the same time offering no arguments …

Methinks you have not read enough DeMar to make that determination.

But just in case you really missed his point, let’s try it again.

The hermeneutical method that Morris allegedly employs to support a six-day creation/young earth view fails him miserably when it comes to future things. The method that arrives at “this” means “that” and “this is that” means “this is like that” is so transparently false that even skeptics can see the error.

It doesn’t require a book length treatment to show the error of such a method. Besides, a book would only make you task that much more difficult, since you have yet to actually come to Morris’ defense and help solve his hermeneutical dilemma.

Maybe your friends that you pinged to the party can help you out.

[P-Marlowe]

The hermeneutical method that Morris allegedly employs to support a six-day creation/young earth view fails him miserably when it comes to future things. The method that arrives at “this” means “that” and “this is that” means “this is like that” is so transparently false that even skeptics can see the error.

Well that hermenutic is often employed by calvinists who claim that all means some and some means all. Additionally that Hermenutic is employed by Preterists who claim that the 70AD siege of Jerusalem was the worst tribulation that the world has ever seen, despite the fact that more people were killed in the six year siege that began in 130 AD than were killed in 70AD.

WWII dwarfed any tribulation that had occurred in the first century and yet we are to believe that the 70AD siege was the worst that would ever occur?

Everyone has their inconsistencies. The Bible is true, but our understanding of it is clouded and we see through a glass darkly. I have found that the dispensationalist model is the most consistent interpretive method. You may disagree. We are probably both wrong. When that which is perfect is come, then the whole thing will become clear.

[topcat54]

Well that hermenutic is often employed by calvinists who claim that all means some and some means all.

Been there done that. It’s been explained how the biblical use of the word “all” is vastly different than the sleight of hand attempted by Morris. You need a different tune.

Your task is to answer Morris’ critics.

WWII dwarfed any tribulation that had occurred in the first century

That’s your opinion only. It is not support from any explicit biblical theology. It’s obvious that a person making such a claim does not understand how comparative language is used in the Bible. It’s merely a tactic to scare away the uninformed. It’s won’t work with me.

Everyone has their inconsistencies.

Yep. Admitting them is the key to growth and knowledge of the truth. That is why I’m not longer a dispensationalist. The inconsistencies are big enough to drive a truck through.

[P-Marlowe]

Your task is to answer Morris’ critics.

Simple. Since when are we required to accept as gospel the interpretation of scripture done by a skeptic? If he is a skeptic, then by definition, he is not going to accept any interpretation of the bible as being consistent or true. His bias is against the truth of scripture.

Now, in regard to the "this=that" argument, when you read Mat 24:23, Jesus is speaking to his disciples (that is, in reality every Christian who will ever be born again, i.e. including us) and he says that when you (disciples) shall see "ALL these things" (not "some of these things"... ALL); when you shall see all these things, "know that the end is near". Well the end hasn't happened yet, has it?

Going on to verse 24, Jesus says "this generation" that is the generation that sees "all these things" shall not pass away until "all these things" are fulfilled.

Now if a skeptic wants to find fault with my heremenutic, then so what? Let him. Do you think he'll be more impressed with your hermenutic that presupposes that "all those things" did occur, but it just happened to miss the attention of all the historians at that time, including the Apostles and the early Church fathers?

Give me a break. The dispensational hermenutic in regard to the Olivet Discourse is much more tenable than the preterist hermenutic.

Go ask Michael Ruse if he is willing to believe the scriptures if they presuppose that all the things mentioned in Matthew 24:29-32 have already occurred. Ask him if he would be any less skeptical of your interpretation than that of Dr. Morris. I dare you.

[invoman]

Matt 15:12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? 13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. 14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

And

John 10:4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. 5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.

[Lord_Calvinus]

***So, while it is true that no one will be convinced apart from the operation of the Spirit, it is equally true that God intends the message to be accurate and in accordance with the Word of God.***

You demonstrate, yet again, that we believe more of the Bible than Arminians. Like many things, it is simply the taking away from Truth to preach half a message.

[P-Marlowe]

You demonstrate, yet again, that we believe more of the Bible than Arminians.

Well then I'm glad I'm not an Arminian.

FWIW, the Catholics believe in a much bigger bible, so by the same token you could say that Catholics believe more of the Bible than Calvinists.

BTW if I preach the Bible, what part of it would be innaccurate or not in accordance with his word?