All too often young-Earth vs old-Earth creation debates on the internet begin and end with mudslinging. JD Longmire, for the young-Earth side, and Riley Barton, for the old-Earth side, have modeled a better way in their recent written debate. Each firmly defends their position, but does so with grace and respect. This does not mean that they minimize their differences; it really matters whether Earth is young or old, just like it really matters whether or not we baptize infant children of believers, or whether we think we are born again because we put our faith in Christ or we think we put our faith in Christ because God has given us spiritual rebirth. It is also important how we treat one another when we have strong disagreements. Will we treat one another with grace and respect, or will we spit on one another? Riley and JD have chosen the higher path in this debate, to the glory of God.

I’m sure both young-Earth and old-Earth Christians will find things they disagree with, not only in the arguments from the other side, but from the proponent for their side. I am not convinced, for example, about the cosmic-temple view advocated by Riley Barton. While the cosmic-temple interpretation gives valuable insights into Genesis 1 (see The Manifold Beauty of Genesis 1 by Davidson and Turner), most conservative biblical scholars are unconvinced by the claim that Genesis 1:1-2:3 is not about material origins.

The format of the debate is six posts by Riley on his website (The Evidence is Plain: Thoughts and Musings on Christianity) and six posts by JD on his website (oddXian). Here are links to the twelve posts, with a quote that is usually from near the beginning of their essay. I hope this whets your appetite so that you will read all these fine essays in their entirety.

Round 1 – Opening Statements: Scripture, Nature, and Time

• Riley Round 1 – “My view of Genesis 1, simply stated, is that it represents a theological polemic against contemporary Ancient Near Eastern religions. Its literary form, structure, vocabulary, and other internal markers support this view, in my opinion, far better than a concordist position that seeks to harmonize a literal, historical‑narrative reading with current scientific knowledge, whether that position be old‑earth or young‑earth.”
• JD Round 1 – “God created the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that is in them in six ordinary days, as presented in Genesis 1 and summarized in Exodus 20:11. The created order was made functionally mature, intelligible, and good.”

Round 2 – Genesis and the Creation Days

• Riley Round 2 – “As stated in my opening comments, my position is that Genesis 1:1–2:3 represents a separate genre from the rest of the book and that this can be clearly demonstrated from the text itself… Thus, the issue is not whether Scripture or science has authoritative primacy, but how the genre of Genesis 1 itself directs us to interpret the passage. “
• JD Round 2 – “The central issue in this round is not whether Genesis 1 is theological. It clearly is. The central issue is whether the theological meaning of Genesis 1 is carried by a real sequence of divine creative acts, or whether that sequence functions only as a literary or temple-framework device without chronological force.”

Round 3 – Scripture, Chronology, and Biblical Theology

• Riley Round 3 – “My argument is that just as Genesis 1 functions as a theological prologue to the narrative proper, so Genesis 1–11 functions as a prologue to the main storyline. Everything in these opening chapters leads toward the real narrative focus: the call of Abraham, the lives of the patriarchs, and the emergence of Israel as a people.”
• JD Round 3 – “My argument is this: Genesis 1–11 is not an isolated theological preface that can be detached from the historical structure of the Bible. It is the foundation of biblical chronology, anthropology, hamartiology, judgment, covenant, and redemption. Later Scripture treats early Genesis as real history. That canonical usage matters.”

Round 4 – Nature, Science, and Historical Reconstruction

• Riley Round 4 – “In Rounds 2 and 3, the core of my argument has been that Genesis 1:1–2:3 and Genesis 5 and 11 do not provide enough information for a scientific reconstruction of natural history based on their ancient literary form and cultural context. I have not argued that Scripture claims the earth is billions of years old. Nor have I claimed that the core historical claims (i.e., God created, Adam, Eve and the Fall, the Flood, etc.) are non-historical.”
• JD Round 4 – “So the young-earth argument, as I am using it here, does not require modern scientific chronometry. It requires only that the canonical sequence and genealogical structure place creation, Adam, sin, death, Flood, nations, and Abraham within a bounded historical framework incompatible with vast pre-Adamic natural history.”

Round 5 – Death, Fall, Flood, and Theological Coherence

• Riley Round 5 – “Where JD and I agree is that Scripture explicitly teaches that death and suffering “entered into the human order” as a consequence of sin—as JD stated in his opening statement. Where we disagree is on the premise that Adam’s sin was a nature-upending catastrophe that introduced death and chaos into the created order as a whole. So, the crucial question we need to ask at this point is: does the Bible explicitly teach that animal death is a “rupture” into creation caused by sin?”
• JD Round 5 – “The question is not merely whether the earth is old or young. The deeper question is what kind of world God called “very good.” Was the original creation already filled with predation, disease, parasitism, extinction, violence, and suffering? Were countless generations of living creatures born, hunted, diseased, injured, starved, and extinguished before Adam ever sinned? Or did Adam’s rebellion introduce a real rupture into a created order that was originally good, ordered, life-giving, and uncorrupted by the death-regime we now experience? That is the theological pressure point.”

Round 6 – Closing Statements

• Riley Round 6 – “Despite the initial framing of this debate, the real question has never been whether Scripture or science has greater authority. The real question has been: Which hermeneutic is most faithful to the text of Scripture itself? JD and I share the same theological commitments. We affirm the same doctrines, the same gospel, and the same authority of Scripture. We simply arrive at those shared conclusions by different interpretive roads.”
• JD Round 6 – “I am defending what might be called functionally mature, open-age creationism. By that I mean this: Scripture presents God creating the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that is in them in six ordinary days. It presents the created order as functionally mature, ordered, and very good. It presents Adam and Eve as real historical persons, placed under real command, followed by a real Fall, real curse, real judgment, and real redemption.”

Substantial Agreements

The disagreements Christians have regarding Genesis are significant and important. What we often forget in these debates, however, is that old-Earth and young-Earth Christians agree about more things, and more important things, than what we disagree about. JD Longmire lists some of these in his concluding comments (Round 6):

I also want to state where I think we agree.

We both affirm Scripture as true and authoritative.

We both affirm a real Adam and Eve.

We both affirm a real Fall.

We both affirm that Christ is the last Adam.

We both affirm that Genesis must be read according to genre, context, grammar, and authorial intent.

We both reject reckless concordism that tries to force modern scientific categories into every biblical text.

Those agreements matter.

The disagreement is not whether Scripture is true. The disagreement is how Scripture’s truth governs our interpretation of Genesis, natural history, death, and the created order.

Amen. Our disagreements matter, but our agreements matter as well.

JD ended the debate with Soli Deo Gloria. Riley ended the debate with Grace and Peace.

Amen to these as well.