Spurgeon distorted

Apparently, the young-Earth organization Answers in Genesis doesn’t want its readers to know that 19th century preacher Charles Spurgeon had no problem with an Earth that is millions of years old. AiG is posting Spurgeon sermons on its web site, but has edited at least one sermon to remove references to an old Earth. A few weeks ago I had a post on Spurgeon’s old Earth beliefs, and included the following quote from his June 17, 1855 sermon “The Power of the Holy Ghost.”

In the 2d verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, wherein man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion. He allowed the inward fires to burst up from beneath, and melt all the solid matter, so that all kinds of substances were commingled in one vast mass of disorder. [emphasis added]

The AiG version of this sermon removed the part I have in bold, and changed other parts to match their young-Earth system. When others pointed out this omission, AiG added the sentence as a footnote, but did not revise its other editing of the message.

The truth is that one can have a very high view of Scripture, as Charles Spurgeon did (and as I do), and accept an old age for the Earth. It seems AiG wishes to shield its readers from this truth.

To non-Christians reading this: don’t reject Christianity because of what organizations like AiG say.

HT: beyondcreationscience.com

Grace and Peace

7 thoughts on “Spurgeon distorted

  1. Tim Helble

    Kevin – Interesting that you have been monitoring the Beyond Creation Science website. I read the book recently, and while I have difficulty with a few parts (and I might be wrong), I found the book to be spot-on in numerous areas. Martin and Vaughn have clearly done their homework – they cite a variety of sources and clearly spell out their case. For other readers of this blog, Beyond Creation Science argues there is a relationship between interpretation of Genesis and Revelation, and that the correct interpretation of both lies in a covenant context. Martin and Vaughn are preterists – they also present their case that there is a relationship between bad interpretation of Genesis (i.e., YEC) and bad interpretation of Revelation (i.e., futureism).

    Gary Hayes – I think you might have made a typo in your comment – you mentioned getting CRI stuff and I think you meant ICR (Institute for Creation Research). CRI is the Christian Research Institute, which is headed by Hank Haanegraff. On a few occasions, he has indicated he is open to an old earth. However, he constantly beats up on evolution, but at the same time blasts the word-faith leaders for false teachings. CRI’s slogan is “Because Truth Matters.” I would sure like to hear CRI come out against the false teachings of the YEC organizations, but I suspect they fear to do so because it would alienate too much of their base.


  2. WebMonk

    Actually, the issue you brought up here isn’t the worst part (at least to my mind) of what they did with that sermon. At least they finally put in a footnote. What they didn’t do was footnote their changes made a couple sentences later.

    Changing “the Creator gave up the world to confusion” to “the Creator initially created the world as a chaotic mass on the first day of creation.”


  3. Pingback: DID GOD REALLY SAY……… « Fr. Orthohippo

  4. E Hall

    Why attack Creation Science.
    If you have a different opinion the you are welcome to your opinion.
    The problem with the opinion of the theistic evolutionist is that in an attempt to not look foolish in the eyes of the world, they secede the sovereignty of God.
    To me, God is so omnipotent, that he can do anything in an instant. So those first four words on Genesis should be enough, ‘In the beginning God’.


    1. geochristian

      “In the beginning God.” I agree 100%.

      My understanding of “creation science” is that it is not biblically necessary nor is it scientifically credible.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s