LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

will [then] be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God” (Rom 8:19, 21). For now, however, we must be content to live in this still-broken age amidst the tensioned surety of the not (quite) yet.

      As such, this process of renewal has been and remains continually painful for the totality of fallen creation. All of creation—whether organic or inorganic—truly groans, cries, struggles, and grieves in its own way as it waits for the new glory to finally appear (Rom 8:22–24). Despite the ongoing renewing work of God (see John 5:17)—indeed, in accordance with that work—the fall has its inundative consequences. Persevering through these consequences requires our trust in the Christ of our salvation and our ongoing patient endurance.

      While the very notion of divine judgment is never a comfortable matter among compassionate people—and quite frankly unwelcome in many circles—it is strongly presented as a reality in the Bible. Therefore, all thoughtful seekers and followers of Christ must deal with it straight up. It cannot be avoided without negating a significant part of the scriptural revelation. According to Scripture, God has punctuated chronological history with three great purging judgments: the Fall Judgment (Gen 3), the Flood Judgment (Gen 6–8), and the Final Judgment (Rev 1–22). Within the scarlet thread that runs throughout the holy text, all three are inseparably intertwined. In the light of God’s complete omniscience and perfect holiness, all three have been deemed to be necessary.

      While this book focuses specifically on the reality of the Noahic Flood, it will be apparent that all three judgments are in play throughout the narrative. If it wasn’t for the Adamic Fall, there would be no Flood nor Eschaton. Yet, the Fall leads to the Flood, which points to the Eschaton.

      Note also that this book can be read as a stand-alone entity. It is, however, highly suggested that one first read The Genesis Column prior to reading The Genesis Cataclysm. The former sets the stage for the latter; and the latter is an extension from and a derivative appendage of the former. Moreover, there are a number of concepts discussed in The Genesis Column (including, of course, the Inundative Corruption Hypothesis, and then perhaps most importantly, the model’s overall meta-narrative presentation) of which being familiar with would be quite helpful in understanding The Genesis Cataclysm. The Flood fits into the total picture of God’s redemptive program and serves to magnify the extreme seriousness in chronos by which the Almighty, in his holiness, takes our creaturely sin and rebellion. In fact, in all honesty, within the total purview of the Genesis Column Model, one cannot seriously hold to a view of anything less than a global Noahic Flood.

      In reading this book, may our thinking be seriously provoked and may we enjoy—yet mostly, benefit—from the provocation.

      W. Joseph Stallings

      Wilson, North Carolina

      Eastertide 2020

      1. Balsiger and Sellier, Jr., In Search of Noah’s Ark. As a young teenager, I remember reading this book and then watching the television documentary of the same name with a bunch of my friends. We were all enthralled by the mystique and captivated by the notion that perhaps someone had actually found the Ark.

      2. More specifically, Old-Earth Progressive Creationism. See The Genesis Column, 1–6. We believe that both the scriptural and natural revelations proclaim in unison that “These are the generations [Hebrew toledot] of the heavens and the earth when they were created” (Gen 2:4a)—viz., these are the successive and lengthy periods of creation and ongoing existence.

      3. For instance, think Meredith Kline and Bruce Waltke.

      4. For instance, see The Genesis Column, 2. In reference to Genesis 1–2, I write: “I have come to believe that those two chapters tie the whole biblical revelation together. I have also come to believe that those two chapters provide a special intersection with the truth of natural revelation and present a composite picture of the whole of created reality.”

      1

      The Issue Proper

Christian scholars have an obligation to lead the way toward a renewed reverence for God’s truth wherever it can be found. . . . Christians should be preeminently motivated to investigate the intricacies of God’s created order, confident that a better grasp of both God’s Word and God’s works will be forthcoming.1

Within the story of human antiquity, there are probably few things more enigmatic—and more controversial—than the matter of the Noahic Flood. As geomorphologist David R. Montgomery forthrightly states: “Noah’s story is central to one of the longest-running debates between science and religion as people sought, and still seek, to reconcile scriptural interpretation with observations of the natural world.”2 In this regard, he is absolutely right on the mark. There is frequent debate among scholars, even among those who are evangelical Christians, about such things as the Flood’s historicity, extensiveness, and significance. In their classic 1961 book, The Genesis Flood, Whitcomb and Morris make this statement:

The question of the historicity and the character of the Genesis Flood is no mere academic issue of interest to a small handful of scientists and theologians. If a worldwide flood actually destroyed the entire antediluvian human population, as well as all land animals, except those preserved in a special Ark constructed by Noah (as a plain reading of the Biblical record would lead one to believe), then its historical and scientific implications are tremendous. The great Deluge and the events associated with it necessarily become profoundly important to the proper understanding of anthropology, of geology, and of all other sciences which deal with historical and prehistorical events and phenomena.3

      Just what one believes about the Noahic Flood has tremendous implications across a vast array of scientific and historical arenas. Furthermore, from an integrationist perspective, we believe that these scientific and historical implications are all tied together by the Flood’s importance within the realm of orthodox-evangelical Christian theology. As such, Whitcomb and Morris add this:

But of even greater importance are the implications of the mighty Flood of Genesis for Christian theology. For that universal catastrophe speaks plainly and eloquently concerning the sovereignty of God in the affairs of men and in the processes of nature. Furthermore, it warns prophetically of a judgment yet to come, when the sovereign God shall again intervene in terrestrial events, putting down all human sin and rebellion and bringing to final fruition His age-long plan of creation and redemption.4

It is our contention that the Flood must be viewed from both the broad and the narrow as well as the blatant and the hidden perspectives in order to grasp its veracity.5 Following Whitcomb and Morris, the Scriptures do not statically present the Noahic Flood as just another notable event which happened sometime in the distant past, but as a divine apex action inundated with profound theological meaning that occurred within the bounds of both natural and human history. They also offer a reminder that the Flood event of history serves as a precursor to another cataclysmic event—an event in chronos that is still yet to come—the eschatological return of Christ and the Final Judgment. This particular concept, as shall be later shown, is extremely important.

There are three major views concerning the Flood. First, there is the traditional view, which posits that the Flood was an actual historical event that transpired as a global, worldwide cataclysm. Second, there is the local view, which posits that the Flood was an actual occurrence, but was limited and somewhat regional in nature (most regional models place the Flood in the Mesopotamian area). Third, there is the symbolic view, which holds that the Flood was not an actual historical event, but rather a story written to teach theological truth.6 It should be additionally noted that it is also possible to devise creative hybrid understandings as well. For instance, some scholars will formulate various combinations of the local and the symbolic view (e.g., Longman and Walton).

We immediately

Скачать книгу