| Prophecy Wars: The Biblical Battle Over the End Times
by Gary DeMar
January, 2025
Here is a link to buy the book from American Vision
Excerpts from Chapter 20 titled"
Does Eschatology Matter More than Six Literal Days of Creation?
Ken Ham, who is a Young Earth Creationist (YECist), says the church opened a door for the exodus of youth beginning in the 19th century when it taught that “the age of the Earth is not an issue as long as you trust in Jesus and believe in the resurrection and the Gospel accounts.” Ham concedes that “salvation is not conditioned on what you believe about the age of the Earth and the six days of creation.” He admits that there “are many who believe in millions of years and are Christians.” Even so, the Genesis issue does matter, he argues, “because salvation does rise or fall on the authority of Scripture. The message of the Gospel comes from these words of Scripture.” There is no direct biblical evidence that establishes the age of the Earth when compared to direct evidence that God created the heavens and earth (Gen. 1:1; Col. 1:16; 1 Tim. 4:4; Heb. 11:3).
Old Earth Creation (OEC) advocates believe in the authority and integrity of the Bible as much as YECists do. By their own admission, YECists note that well-respected Bible-believing theologians, Christian scientists,1 and scholars from different fields2 did not and do not believe the Bible teaches a young earth. (Personally, I believe the Bible does not deal with the topic of the age of the earth. The fact that God is the creator is fundamental to both the Old and New Testaments with no mention of the Earth’s age.) Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) had this to say about the age of the earth:
"Can any man tell me when the beginning was? Years ago we thought the beginning of this world was when Adam came upon it; but we have discovered that thousands of years before that God was preparing chaotic matter to make it a fit abode for man, putting races of creatures upon it, who might die and leave behind the marks of his handiwork and marvelous skill, before he tried his hand on man."3
I don’t know anyone who would accuse Spurgeon of not holding up the authority and integrity of the Bible.
In the book edited by Terry Mortenson and Thane Ury, Coming to Grips with Genesis, the following is found: “The Baptist ‘Prince of Preachers,’ Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892), uncritically accepted the old-earth geological theory (though he apparently did not realize that the geologists were thinking in terms of millions of years.)”4 Further digging will show that Spurgeon did believe in an old earth, “many millions of years” old:
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.5
Take note that this sermon was preached before Darwin’s publication of On the Origin of Species in 1859....
pp. 315-316
------------------------------
So then, it’s not the age of the earth that is driving some young people away, it’s the fact that the Bible is not taught in a comprehensive way that has meaning for the here and now and future.
When I wrote my article “Why Young People are Leaving the Church” I knew it would generate some response. I was taken to task by a few YECists because I did not point out the dangers of OECism arguments and how they create serious theological problems such as disease and death before the fall. Some OECists attempt to answer this objection exegetically. YECists can and do disagree with OEC arguments, but they can’t accuse OECists of not appealing to the Bible to make their case since appealing to the Bible and science are like the approach YECists take.
The claim that a church exodus among young people is the result of not teaching YECism is simplistic, unproven, and shortsighted. I pointed out in “Why Young People are Leaving the Church” that it is factually and apologetically a mistake to imply that OECists take a compromised position on biblical inspiration, authority, and integrity as compared to YECists. It gets YECists nowhere to argue otherwise and vice versa. I have fundamental problems with dispensationalists on the issue of eschatology, but I have never accused them of not believing the Bible.
In “Why Young People are Leaving the Church,” I argued that there are exegetical and hermeneutical inconsistencies among YECists who are dispensationalists (e.g., Henry Morris, Tim LaHaye, and Ray Comfort) and among those who speak in churches and homeschool conventions about YECism (even though they themselves may not be dispensationalists). I contend that prophecy, because it is about the future, has a greater impact on people than does whether the earth is young or old. Some creation/prophecy writers27 claim that not to believe in a global flood is a sign that the end is near based on 2 Peter 3:3-9. Since there are many who are questioning a belief in a global flood, so the argument goes, we must be living in the last days. As Morris pointed out in his book Creation and the Second Coming, there is no way to escape a creation-prophecy connection.
p. 323
---------------------------------------
After many years of avoiding the topic, Ken Ham decided to enter the debate over eschatology in a long Facebook post about the last days:
"We are in the last days! Ever since God’s Son stepped into history to become Jesus Christ the God-man, we have been in the last days. We don’t know how “last” we are. We just know we are more “last” than we were. We do know that one day Jesus will return and there will be a final judgment—and the last days will then end.
It’s fascinating that nearly 2,000 years ago, Peter (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) wrote about scoffers in the last days. As we read about these scoffers, we realize that there is “nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). The basic sin nature of man is the same today as it was 2,000 years ago— and as it was 6,000 years ago when our ancestor Adam rebelled against God.
Peter explains that these scoffers in the last days will scorn those who believe Jesus is returning, and will exclaim, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” The philosophy of the scoffers is that physical processes just go on and on without any miraculous intervention (2 Peter 3:4)." 35
Ham ties his interpretation to today’s persecution of Christians as evidence that Jesus’ return may be near. Did Peter describe events of some unknown distant future? Not at all. There was a great tribulation in the first century (Matt. 24:21),36 and Peter (John 21:18-19), John (Rev. 1:9), and Christians of that generation were a part of it.
Ham’s view is not new. Brock Hollett in his book Debunking Preterism also appeals to 2 Peter 3 to explain that the mockers Peter mentions are still future. Here’s Hollett’s way of interpreting Peter’s objection to the scoffers of his day:
"Peter reminded his readers that scoffers would cast aspersion on the prophetic certainty of the Lord’s promise to return quickly. They will mock, “Where is the promise of his coming?” (2 Peter 3:4). The apostle responded to this charge by explaining that the apparent failure of Jesus to return quickly is not an actual failure to faithfully keep his promises. Furthermore, the fact that he did not return immediately does not indicate a failure to return soon. The apostle affirmed that the Lord “is not slow as some count slowness” (v. 9, emphasis added.)
Ham’s position is similar to Hollett’s. They line up with Morris’s view in his 1991 book Creation and the Second Coming (132). I don’t have the space to expand on the “flood” analogy only to say that the imagery is picked up in Daniel 9:26 related to the destruction of the temple that tookplaceinAD70:“Anditsendwillcomewithaflood;eventotheend there will be war [Matt. 24:6]; desolations are determined [23:38].” The “flood” is a reference to the invading armies that destroyed the temple as Jesus had predicted and took away some of the Jews as prisoners of war as described in Matthew 24:37-41:
"For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. For as in those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking, they were marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so shall the coming of the Son of Man be. Then there shall be two men in the field; one will be taken, and one will be left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken, and one will be left."37
It was a local judgment (Matt. 24:15-20). The same is true of how Peter uses the flood analogy. This brings us to identifying the scoffers who were asking, “Where is the promise of His coming?” (2 Peter 3:3). Peter was describing the scoffers of his day who were scoffing at what Jesus had predicted in the Olivet Discourse and elsewhere during His ministry, that He would return in judgment before their generation passed away.
The fact is, the New Testament writers, including Peter (1 Pet. 1:20; 4:7), taught that Jesus would return “shortly” (Rev. 1:1, 3; 22:10), before the last apostle died (John 21:18-24; Matt. 16:27-28),38 within a generation (Matt. 24:34), because the time was “near” for them (James 5:7-9; Rev. 1:3), and the old covenant was “near to disappear” (Heb. 8:13). Peter wrote, “The end of all things is at hand” (1 Pet. 4:7). What he described in that verse must have applied to what we read in 2 Peter 3. The “coming” mentioned by New Testament writers was a “coming” in judgment, not a physical coming like Jesus’ incarnation, but like the predicted comings that resulted in judgments by God as described by Old Testament prophets (e.g., Isa. 19:1; Micah 1:2-4; Zeph. 1:6, 14).
The judgment coming that the New Testament describes was leveled against Israel in the period leading up to the temple’s destruction in AD 70 (Matt. 22:1-14).
pp. 328-330
--------------------------
|
