Historical Christadelphian Approaches - 10
← Index of
Early Genesis, A review of historical Christadelphian approaches
- by Bro Ken Chalmers, January, 2016
10. The Flood of Noah
The flood of Noah has likewise received conflicting approaches within our community. In recent times, or at least since the 1960’s, it appears to have been interpreted more broadly within our community as having been a universal flood which had significant geological impacts. This approach has arisen because of the prominence given in our community to the work of two non-geologists, Morris and Whitcomb, in their book, “The Genesis Flood”.[1] This approach has been described as Flood Geology. Again, our community’s writings reveal a very different viewpoint, as follows:
“Fragments, however, of the wreck of this pre-Adamic world have been brought to light by geological research, to the records of which we refer the reader, for a detailed account of its discoveries, with this remark, that its organic remains, coal fields, and strata, belong to the ages before the formation of man, rather than to the era of the creation, or the Noachic flood”.[2]
Clearly, bro Thomas rejected Flood Geology. However, Brother Roberts also writes:
“In other words, was the flood universal in the sense of covering the entire globe? Considering the comparatively limited extent of the human family at the time, and that it was confined to one small district of the globe, it would seem reasonable to conclude from the principle already looked at—the divine sparingness of means— that the flood was co-extensive only with the Adamically-inhabited portion of the globe. There are facts that compel such a conclusion: and as all facts are of God, they must be in agreement.”[3]
Similarly, bro W D Jardine, a contemporary of brother Roberts writes:
“In the days of Noah, it (the earth) was of larger extent, and there is sufficient reason to believe the flood was of no greater extent, and the people who were swept away by it were those only who constituted the antagonistic force in rendering Noah and his family worthy the ark. It was all the earth to both, and all the family of Adam and all the living creatures and all the earth as related to the purposes of God in view of the future.”[4]
More recently, others have supported the view that Flood Geology is not scientific, possible or required as part of our teaching concerning creation:
“It is surprising to find that many people regard Morris and Whitcomb as the inventors of the theory of Flood Geology. In reality, they merely revived it. The theory was held almost universally in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. But it was made untenable by the discoveries of nineteenth century geologists, and so was abandoned by practically everybody, including nearly all the Bible-believing creationists of the day . . . Even more surprising is the way that some brethren seem to think Flood Geology is a part of Christadelphian orthodoxy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Dr. Thomas made it quite plain that he knew about Flood Geology—and rejected it . . . The scientific objections to Flood Geology are so numerous that it would require a whole book to state them.”[5]
Interestingly, while bro Hayward argued in 1973 (God’s Truth) that the flood was likely local, in the above reference he concedes that he now (1977) believed it possible that the flood was indeed global.
Recently, bro Jonathan Burke has also argued that the flood was local:
“There are three possible interpretations of the Genesis flood. It could have been anthropologically global (all humans everywhere in the earth were affected), and geographically global (the entire earth was covered with water). Alternatively, it could have been anthropologically global (all humans on the earth affected), but geographically local (only a local area of the earth covered with water because all the humans were localised in that area). A third possibility is that it could have been anthropologically local (only humans within the area of the flood were affected), but geographically local (and only a local area of the earth covered with water). An argument will be made . . . for the third of these interpretations, on the basis of the Biblical text.” [6]
On the basis of brother Burke’s three options, it is likely that brethren Thomas and Roberts’ view is compatible with the second option identified above.
Reference has previously been made to bro Alan Hayward’s comments on “Flood Geology”. In his 1983 letter to the Christadelphian editor, his concluding comments are relevant in the context of current views being expressed:
“Those who have embraced such views ought not harshly to criticise (as some have done) the rest of us, when our only fault has been to say, in effect, ‘I think Brethren Thomas, Roberts and Walker were right about geology, and that the science of Drs. Whitcomb and Morris and their associates is as unsound as their evangelical theology.’ ”[7]
- ↑ Morris, Henry M. & Whitcomb, John C Jnr, The Genesis Flood – the Biblical record and its scientific implications, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1961
- ↑ John Thomas Thomas, J, op cit, p 11.
- ↑ Robert Roberts, The Visible Hand of God, p 49, Dawn Book Supply, 1959
- ↑ Jardine, W D, The Bible as a Law of Life and Immortality, in The Ambassador of the Coming Age, Vol 1, p 115 (1865); this quotation should be read in conjunction with the previous citation on pages 26, 27, in which WDJ has suggested that the Creation days applied only to Eden, its immediate precinct, its inhabitants and relevant ‘transactions’ which God may have had).
- ↑ Alan Hayward, Letter to the Editor, Flood Geology – a note of Caution, The Christadelphian, v114, p269 (1977)
- ↑ Burke, J, Living on the Edge – challenges to faith, Lively Stones Publishing, p 248, 249 (2013)
- ↑ Hayward, A, Letter to the Editor, Our Pioneer’s Views on Geology, The Christadelphian, v120, p429 (1983)
