A few months ago, an ex-student of mine reached out to me. We reestablished a rapport, and after a short while she asked me about my faith, and expressed an interest, and a desire to know the Lord. As you can probably imagine, I was more than happy to share with her. However, she has also recently shared the conflict that she is experiencing and the difficulty that she sees in trying to reconcile her faith and science. I shared your videos with her, along with some other resources, and assured her that science and faith can indeed coexist to the glory of God and that we don’t have to choose between one or the other. Thanks again for your ministry and the work that you do. You are a continual blessing to me and to many others. May the Lord continue to bless you and strengthen you in your ministry.
Did you not thus tell here that the Bible is disconnected from the objective creation of God and cannot convey what happened in creation in meaningful language that is cognate with both the events of creation and our experience of the world? That is, existentially locates us in the domain of God's word? Did you not then imply that human endeavour is a disinterested pursuit of knowledge, that seeks to put aside any particular preconceptions, naturalism, for example? So, how does your student make sense of a platonized creation account that removes it from the real world, fictionalizes it, and substitutes other space-time events, which imply a completely different, grounding of reality, faith and knowledge? That is, if the creation account is not accurate to events, then something else happened, and it is this something else describes who we are, who God is, and our relation to the creation and creator.
How serendipitous! Today I listened to an interview Sean McDowell did with Sy Garte. He's a scientist and speaks on the "issue" of reconciling science and Scripture: ua-cam.com/video/Eti1TxLIxU8/v-deo.htmlsi=9L3Z878xsPshtjU3
As a Christian with a high regard for scientific discovery - it has been such a blessing in many areas to mankind; I have to say that Science can only go so far. What we are dealing with is so vast, complicated and profound, that were we to spend the next 10,000 years in cosmological and geological discovery, we would still be only scratching the surface! Just look at the recent findings in cosmology that have overturned a lot of what was believed before. Science changes and develops, the Word of God never. As the Lord Jesus Christ said; ‘Your Word is truth’. (John 17:17 Bible).
@@cosmictreason2242”Rebuking and correcting” implies that they have a legitimate perspective, or knowledge that Ortlund does not have, which I have not seen. What I have seen is frankly embarrassing.
@@JonJaeden it's ugly and shocking to me how liberaly people apply heresy to anyone who happens to disagree with them. It comes down to rhetoric, demonizing your oponant is easier than facing the arguments.
The problem is YEC propagate that their view is the only legitimate and plausible view. And I say that as a YEC who beleives in a young earth and a global flood. That being said I find it embarrassing that YEC takes such an extreem position in that those who disagree are frequently called into questions of not beleiving the Bible, teaching false doctrine among other serious accusations. Personally I beleive we as Christians should achnowledge our limits in Biblical interpretation.
The idea that Gavin Ortlund could be lumped into the category of "progressive Christian" is simply laughable. Gavin is always a champion of having a biblically grounded foundation..... Megan Basham's response to Gavin really takes the cake. Unreal.
It all begins with "Did God REALLY say..." Take what God says plainly or seek his understanding on it, don't be doubleminded seeking the opinions of man to validate your understanding of God.
@@kriegjaeger Question for you, in Exodus 10:15 it says that God brought the plague of locusts from a east wind and “they covered the face of 👉🏻the whole earth, 👈🏻so that the land was darkened;” Do you believe that North America and Australia were covered in locusts during this plague?
As a newer Christian, it's just so strange to me seeing this level of backlash towards these more in-house issues (like the flood or the age of the earth).. but then nowhere NEAR that same level of zeal from these same Christians in confronting ACTUAL unquestionable heresies like unitarianism, etc.
Don’t get thrown by these issues. Debates have existed from the beginning of time. As a very wise pastor has said ‘the main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things”. Keep on keeping on and do not let anyone or anything cause you to lose your adherence to Jesus. All things will become clear eventually when we meet him face to face. I have been a Christian for over 50 years and have heard all sorts of things in my lifetime, nothing will shake me from my absolute and complete trust in Jesus Christ’s sacrifice for my sins, and his love for me!
The flood and the age of the earth are much more than in-house issues. They are foundational topics that call into question the integrity and reliability of Scripture itself.
We take what God gives us in his Word. We stand on his promises and his faithfulness and what he has done for us through Christ’s work on the cross and his resurrection. We will never know everything or we would be God. God does not lie. His Word is true. Pray for the Holy Spirit’s insight into the Scriptures. What we don’t understand in our limited thinking and knowledge in his Word, we take on faith. What is important is that Jesus, who is God, mentioned the flood event and Noah. We know it happened. Jesus Christ is LORD and he was raised from the dead to save those who believe. That’s what’s important. Continue in faith, loving and serving the Lord! 😊🙏🏼♥️🙌🏼✝️
Yes, sadly, we often are firecest towards those closest to us :( Hold fast, brother, and learn to be an example both truth and grace - we can disagree, even strongly, in love.
To be frank it would be because those genuine heresies, #1 are pretty much settled and labeled correctly, and #2 are far more rare than the debates over the age of the Earth and creation as well as the literal nature versus metaphorical nature of Genesis. I have yet to meet an actual Unitarian but have met MANY people who question their faith because of the creation story and the flood. These things need addressing and what I find, personally, is a prioritization of modern science over scripture as is. So, while I don't think believing in a global flood is an issue of salvation I do think it strikes at a very real problem of people questioning the authority and legitimacy of scripture.
Anyone who when they disagree lowers their argument to personal attacks immediately destroys their own credibility. If they believe their position is correct, argue on the merits and facts. Childish name calling just makes them look petty.
Is it childish to say Ortlundism and Ortpinions? I feel like that actually honors Gavin since he basically runs his own denomination and pretends he’s Baptist.
@@jonathanw1106 You want a critical thinking exercise, try this: how can individual Christians distinguish between divinely revealed truths and their own strong opinions, especially since Christian leaders disagree about what the Bible teaches? Also, how did Christians understand their faith for four centuries without a Bible and fifteen centuries of widespread illiteracy, no printing press, and hardly anyone being able to afford a Bible? Take those for a spin, Mr. Free Thinker.
Thank you for posting this - it is hugely encouraging. I have often felt guilty for not taking the flood story as global because it felt like I was doubting inerrancy. But to know that many learned and conservative Christians believe the same means I am not swimming alone.
😮Gavin is an absolutely incredible spokesman for Christianity. Thoughtful, well-researched, mature, and longsuffering. Most importantly, the health of the faith is his highest concern. Well done here!
Spokesman for the Ortlundism wing of Christianity* A delightful and eclectic blend of views based on Gavin’s hunches. “Augustine was wrong about sacraments, C.S. Lewis was wrong about purgatory, Martin Luther was wrong about Mary, most Christians through history have been wrong about baptism.” We are truly blessed to have Gavin as our UA-cam shepherd!
@CurtosiusMaximus828 Hmmm. Too many in the Pastorate/ Priesthood seem to have a heavy investment in division. The business of anything is about finding a niche market isn't it? Either that or absolute rule.
@thegoatofyoutube1787 Gavin's preference would be for us all to have a wisdom about theological triage. Division suits many in the Pastorate / Priesthood who are heavily invested in their niche (and there are those who miss absolute rule). Christianity needs to move past the nonsense of division. Stick to first tier doctrines and go live the Christian life. Is there a reason we have to make following God's will complicated? No, there is NO good reason for it. Anyone preoccupied with maintaining their buildings and positions in Christianity will continue to fail the faith because they are preoccupied with the temporal. The Catalysm of the Kingdom of Heaven will help you understand.
@@thecatalysm5658 there didn’t used to be division. Before the Protestant revolution there were 2 churches. Thats it. The Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church. That’s it. Just 2. Protestants introduced a novel concept called “sola Scriptura” and now there are literally thousands of churches. The division comes from people like Gavin and other Protestants using Christianity as a play thing that they just make up as they go along based on their own subjective interpretations of scripture and history. If you want to move past division, then move past Protestantism and join the church Jesus Christ established. It’s the only way, period.
I was disheartened by Basham and Zeisloft’s response. I am always inspired by your continued charity and ability to interact with it honestly and with sincere grace.
People on Twitter were not charitable in their responses to your video???? I'm SHOCKED 😲 😅 Seriously, I appreciate your grace in the face of all the ad hominem attacks. Thank you for this video.
I am very happy you decided to post about this. I am of the belief that the flood was local, my wife tends to be on the whole earth flood. We both enjoyed your video because of how carefully and respectfully you handle these topics. You single handedly convinced me not to jump into Catholicism against me wife’s wishes because of certain arguments and concerns you have posted about. All in all I’m sorry for all of the pushback, but I’m very happy about you posting these informative and respectful videos.
God bless you and your family!Its not easy having some theological differences with your spouse but I pray that the Lord continues to give you both humility and unity in your marriage despite having some differences.❤
What was your favorite point Gavin made that stopped you from being Catholic? You should continue to prayerfully explore and consider Catholicism. Gavin does not accurately portray church history (when it comes to the Catholic question). Probably the best example of that is Augustine who Ortlund claims he "only opposes with fear and trembling" while Augustine confirms countless Catholic beliefs and views that Gavin ignores or rejects.
@@thegoatofyoutube1787 Hey, I should explain myself a little bit. If I took a test that would determine where I would land it would be Catholic. I’m drawn to it, I won’t lie about that, and many people that I look up to are Catholic. I just believe that Mr. Ortlund is genuine. So when he makes points about how Protestants should look at church history, that real presence isn’t silly for example, and when he focuses on unifying Christians no matter what denomination or tradition, that really impacts me. My wife and I have theological differences, but thankfully we don’t have theological disputes. So when Gavin shows how I can unify some differences between me and my wife it’s powerful for me. But I can also say that it’s not like I have completely turned my back on the Catholic Church. I’m doing more study research and prayer than I ever have. Hope that answers some questions and I would love some prayers about all of it.
@@thegoatofyoutube1787 I can't speak for the person you asked the question to but for me it was his video on the origins of icon veneration. I found his argument to be absolutely devastating and I thought the responses to it were abounding in logical fallacies and borderline dishonest.
@@joshuas1834 Do you think the ancient church was concerned about people using images to remind them of the true Lord and enrich their prayer life (icons in the church) or do you think they were concerned with idolatry and scandal? Anyone who’s been steeped in Catholicism or Orthodoxy will tell you that images are not being worshipped. We have our own idols today (sex, money, entertainment, etc.)… worshipping statues and images is no longer a mainstream problem. I’ll admit that I didn’t watch his icon video because I’ve lost patience with his dishonest comments (like pretending he rarely disagrees with Augustine). Icons seem like a pretty nuanced and inconsequential hill to die on. Catholics and Orthodox Christians who don’t think that they help the Christian prayer life don’t need to use them. “I acknowledge also the holy apostles, prophets, and martyrs; and I invoke them to supplication to God, that through them, that is, through their mediation, the merciful God may be propitious to me, and that a ransom may be made and given me for my sins. Wherefore also I honor and kiss the features of their images, inasmuch as they have been handed down from the holy apostles, and are not forbidden, but are in all our churches” (Basil,Letter 360 [circa A.D. 370
Hey Gavin, I stayed with you right to the end. I’m so thankful for this discussion. It’s really helping me. I’m a “good faith onlooker” as you said. Thanks.
Thank you for creating respectful, productive conversation around these fascinating and at times contentious topics. Very grateful for your channel and the brave work you do.
Although, I still believe in the global flood. You have humbled me to not be dogmatic about my personal and human interpretation of Scripture. Thank you for doing this video
I really think some of the confusion around inerrancy stems from critiques like the one Megan launched. Your whole point is that Genesis doesn't teach a global flood, not that it does and instead we should reject its teaching for a local flood. I've never understood why this was hard for people to get
The biggest thing for me is that along side the worldwide language dirrectly used to refer to the flood, all the descriptions of how the flood occurs pretty much eliminate a local interpretation. Like if this is a local flood what does "the fountains of the great deep bursting forth" have to do with it? And the biggest descriptor that I dont see any way around a local interpretation is it describes the floods zenith as availing above the tops of the mountains some 15 cubits. Local floods can only take place in basins of some kind, once the waters go over the boundaries of that basin, let alone any mountains around you are no longer at a local flood. The only way I've seen any local flood proponents address this is to suggest that thevdescription isn't actually describing the straitforward thing it is describing, and even though they might have no malicious intent behind it, I can't see that as anything other than disingenuously ignoring, or twisting what the text says to try to fit the local model.
@@anthonypolonkay2681I suppose a question for OT and Ancient Near East (ANE) scholars is: is there a precedent for writings similar to Genesis 1-11 to use hyperbolic language to prove a point? If the answer is yes, then it's possible that the Scripture is both truthful about the flood but may not have been meant to be perceived literalistically. Rather, it may communicating the completeness of the flood in accomplishing its goal. If I say, "My wife is the sun to my life, brightening my day" -- am I lying? Or is it that the style genre of my style allows for poetry (and/or hyperbole) and so the correct understanding IS NOT that my wife is a star in the universe that I'm somehow married to, but rather her presence is warm (kind) and overall blesses my life every day. Furthermore in my example, the overly literalistic reading of it misses the point completely. Now, I'm not an OT/ANE scholar but if Genesis 1-11 could continue a genre of writing that is similar to my example then it may be that the intended reading is not the overly literalistic, scientific reading but rather a communication of completeness of God's judgment.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 The genesis flood narrative only makes sense as a global flood. If you think genesis teaches a 'local flood' you seriously lack reading skills. Well you also lack geology skills, since the massive layers with fossils are indicators of global flooding in the past. And finally you lack history skills and are obviously ignorant of the vast amount of flood narratives in the legends of various nations prior to Christianity. Any contender against Christianity will have a field day against Christians that try to be cute, by insisting that the flood was local.
@@metapolitikgedanken612 do you lack reading comprehension skills? My whole comment is saying that the text is talking about a global flood, not a local one. Where did it look like I argued for a local one?
Found this very helpful - thank you. I have an MA in theology and teach quite a bit in broadly Reformed Charismatic circles, and I’d never come across this view so well explained and argued. I’m much better for it! God bless and thanks for your ministry. Seb, North Yorkshire, UK
God bless you, sir. I am learning so much from you, and your faith in Our Savior Jesus Christ is obvious in your work. Since joining your channel, I’ve been reading my bible more, praying daily, and studying church history. The Holy Spirit is at work, and I feel closer to Our Lord. I am struggling to find a church, but I know He will lead me. Thank you Dr. Ortlund for all of your videos, especially the devotional and sermon based content. May the Lord continue to guide you and protect you ❤🙏
Excellent work Gavin. You are much kinder and gentler than I could ever be in your situation. I admire your humility and the pastoral heart that emanates from you in every one of your UA-cam videos. I have benefited greatly from them. Because of you I have a better understanding of some of the positions my brothers and sisters in Christ hold. It precisely your earnestness, gentleness, humility, and intelligence that have attracted me to your material. Keep up the good work. You are a wonderful representative of what it is to be a a Christian. I thank God for you and that you have chosen to put yourself in a position to have a wider audience. The world needs to see Christians who are as intelligent as you and behave in the godly way that you do. Well done brother!
Being raised in a pentecostal church and school, its unfortunately the same way with dispensationalism. If you even talk or preach on anything other than pre trib rapture they lose it and call you names, yet its okay for them to to teach dispensationalism. Keep up the good work Dr. Ortlund love your channel
I'm an Indonesian, and though I still believe Noah's flood reached here, I know this issue is not a communion breaker. Local flood proponents are not heretics
They absolutely are heretics. Gen. 6 shows God telling Noah that He was going to destroy the entire planet with water, and Gen. 7 says that _every living thing_ that was outside the ark died when the flood came. That doesn't sound like a "local flood" at all. Matter of fact, the "local flood" argument is something atheists use to discredit the Bible. If it shouldn't be tolerated when they use it, it shouldn't be tolerated when "Christians" argue in favor of it.
I applaud your response and video. Very thankful to God for you and I pray you continue to “unite” us around the issues that matter. I myself haven’t been married to either a local or global flood view. What matters to me is a flood happened that was massive enough to be used as God’s judgement on sinful ppl. Praying that we all learn how to have healthy debate about this without demonizing one another. It’s sad that those are the comments you received
Thanks Gavin for bringing the focus back on the gospel at the end of the video. Keep persevering with your channel which has been a tremendous resource for me, and do not be discouraged. I think what is happening nowadays is that many conservative Christians are feeling a genuine threat from liberalism affecting our lives, families, schools etc. As such, there is a state of hypervigilence, figuratively speaking "swords are drawn". This leads to people being over defensive and overreactions such as labelling anyone who doesn't agree with all of their beliefs as a heretic, or the weaponizing of inerrancy of Scripture as a kind of catch-all argument against any differing viewpoint, or prematurely concluding that any argument that appeals to being loving (or to science) is a liberal lie. It also reveals how poorly the church has done in the area of teaching how to read or study the bible and church history as well. Many simply take at face value what they are taught from the pulpit. Combine that with the echo chambers of social media, noone can hear each other anymore. Taking a step back and reminding us of the gospel really helped.
This video is a great example why I subscribe to this channel. I often disagree with the Gavin. In fact his arguments helped lead me to the Catholic Church. But despite not agreeing I respect that he always presents well thought out, researched, and reasoned arguments. As one who fell into trappings of young earth creationism I truly hope and pray God will lift the vail from the eyes of those holding the belief. Especially those who feel believing in young earth creationism is a required dogma of the faith. The truth will always set us free.
So appreciate you, Gavin…..just started in a 9 week study at my church, Grace Church , Greenville SC, on Genesis 1-12. You are dovetailing so well with our study with regard to the context of the culture at the time Genesis would ha been written…..very encouraging and eye opening to my faith journey . Humility is so lacking when fear dominates. Thank you for truthing with love AND humility.
Wonderful video, thoughtful thorough treatment of the topic. I pray you stay encouraged as you pursue issues like this Dr. Ortlund. Many people are grateful for the time, energy, and knowledge you share. It’s incredible that some people actually attribute negative motives to you. I can’t help but wonder whether they even watched your earlier video, or have seen anything else you’ve produced. Your expertise; ability to research and summarize; and concern for truth, fellowship, and integrity are plain. I loved your point in this video about Christian’s not making the faith look foolish on account of their own foolishness. I share your burden about this issue. The truth and beauty of God shouldn’t be obscured for lack of understanding or humility on our part; in fact, it’s our purpose to glorify God by displaying the truth about Him. The historical survey of views you provided was also eye opening for me. You’re right that so much is unknown, even about relatively recent history. We need more people contextualizing controversial topics so that everyone can know the lay of the land. Thanks again for all your work.
Regarding 2 Peter 3, the globalness of the flood is not only indicated by the word "world", which you rightly point out can mean different things, but also the fact that the flood is associated with the creation and final destruction of the world; two other global events.
Hi Gavin, much love from Sydney! Watched your two videos together and walked away learning more about Christian humility than whether the flood was global (not to downplay your efforts, your case is persuasive and I'd like to keep thinking about it!) I'm so sorry that you went through another Twitter war (teary as I type)! Our Lord never said that the world will know that we are His disciples if we cancel each other on Twitter. I guess with pastor Begg's recent controversy as well, I'm beginning to think harder about what godly disagreement looks like. I believe that how we disagree in the Body shows our love for one other more so than when we agree with one other all the time, because it is when we disagree that our godliness is put to the test. This is a very pastoral video for me. You often use the phrase 'irenic approach', and I'm beginning to understand what it looks like. I'm resolved to use more humble speech to evangelise to my university friends. P.S. Excited that you're doing more online ministry! Your videos increased my gospel assurance, and I aspire to be a Protestant who loves church history! Again, lots and lots of love and support from Sydney!
hey gavin. just watched this video together with your original video on your views on the flood story. and i just felt the need to offer some encouragement, for i can only imagine the grief you felt when you were being accused a heretic. i've been watching your videos, and above all the helpful content, i've been blessed by how charitable you are in responding to criticism (especially ones unwarranted and seemingly baseless). for that, i praise god for his work in you, through you, and in your ministry on truth unites. may we all humble our hearts to his word, and in love for one another as we grow to maturity in christ jesus. thanks for the videos! i thoroughly enjoy them!
Jesus Christ is the Truth and He said He came to divide with the Sword of the Word. The church uniting is all about ecumenism and the fulfilment of Revelation 13.3
Your point that people are so concerned about liberalism without realizing what pressures their own subculture may be instituting is so relevant to the church’s issues today. I stumbled upon your channel a couple months ago. While I struggle with chunks of reformed theology, I appreciate your humility and approach to these topics. The literal approach to the Bible without concern for its context or literary style is very much a stumbling block and you are doing good and important work in the way you address these issues. I’m also thankful anytime someone mentions Dr. Heiser’s work as it as been so helpful in understanding the Biblical authors point of view
Ok, good faith dessenter here. I have two concerns with this video (and a lot of agreement which I won't go in to): 1. The critical backlash you are getting from conservatives about 'did God really say' is a bit cynical and I agree that it's overstepping. However, the main issue is not ' you must believe my literal interpretation or you are a compromising liberal.' the main issue is: could a liberal critic use your logic to poke further holes in the text with regard to the gospel? For example, if exaggerated language is common, how do we know that the disciples meant anything modern when they said they 'saw' Jesus risen in His body? How do we know that Jesus meant that He wanted to save literally any willing person and literally for eternity? How do we know that the communicators of the NT meant anything modern about life beyond this one? This is what you should respond to when trying to desect legitimate varying views of the flood. You cannot merely assert 'well the cross is different.' you have to strengthen and harmonize the language especially when it appears similar to the exaggerated idioms you mention. 2. Your treatment of 2 Peter is appreciated but it needs more work. For example, you pointed out that Peter used the word 'world' when referring to wicked mankind. However, what about the verse right before the flood? 2 Peter 3:5-6 CSB They deliberately overlook this: By the word of God the heavens came into being long ago and the earth was brought about from water and through water. [6] Through these the world of that time perished when it was flooded. Are you suggesting that Peter did not believe that Gen 1 was talking about the whole literal planet? Because that seems to be the immediate context for his parallel to the flood. Additionally, Peter grounds his view of the destruction of the world by fire with the flood: 2 Peter 3:7,10 CSB By the same word, the present heavens and earth are stored up for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. [10] But the day of the Lord will come like a thief; on that day the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, the elements will burn and be dissolved, and the earth and the works on it will be disclosed. What did Peter mean by this in light of a local flood? Please respond and thanks
Very well put! As we are dealing with a period deep in the mists of time, perhaps the whole human race existed only in the Middle East, and there were no other peoples in the far flung continents until after Babel dispersed them. Just a thought! And as I have commented elsewhere, why was in necessary for Noah to take animals into the Ark to preserve them if it was just a local flood? Just thinking, and not coming down on one side or the other in this.
I started reading Bavinck a little while back and he’s been so encouraging to me! Just enough outside our modern bubble that I can still understand him and yet providing perspective I never received in the current evangelical world.
I was reading my son’s recent book report on some of the pilgrims and it brought this video back to my mind. In his reading, the phrase, “new world” kept occurring and he kept mentioning this in conversation about his book report. To think that the local flood view would be heresy based on the usage of world being a regionally used word is not far stretched. The people in the time of the pilgrims viewed what is now America as “a whole new world”. While not used in the exact same sense, it is a striking similarity. For them, the world was the region they knew of, the region they lived in. For us, we know the world as the planet because we can view images of earth from satellites. Even the best maps at the time were drawn from the perspective of high-points on earth. Their understanding was limited to what they at the time. Just as is ours. So no, this idea is not far stretched or “Heresy”. It is plausible.
I think Gavin is wrong about the local flood interpretation, but I think the issue of how we treat people with whom we disagree has more immediate practical importance than the local vs. global flood issue. The urge to assess the motives of others is a temptation that we must fight against. I don’t even trust my assessment of my own deepest motives, so how unwise must it be for me to assess the motives of others. I also think theological triage is hard and we need to think carefully about it. I recommend people watch (or rewatch) Gavin’s video from a year ago called “Theological Triage: Why It Matters” where he explains a four-tiered ranking system approach to triage, and ask yourself which of the four ranks you would assign to the local vs. global flood issue. If it’s an issue of heresy vs. orthodoxy then it’s in rank 1, which would mean it’s of similar importance to the deity of Christ. Does anyone really want to say that? If so, I would be interested to understand your reasoning. Finally I would say that major young-earth creationist organizations (like AiG and CMI) repeatedly state that one can hold wrong beliefs about these issues and still be saved, and that there are other doctrines such as the resurrection that are more important. If you make the global vs local flood views an issue of orthodoxy vs. heresy you are stepping outside the mainstream of YEC views.
My husband thinks in a very similar way to you on a lot of these topics. He has forced my brain to be open to really thinking about scripture and what it truly says and not what I have been told as someone raised in Christianity.
then why are you looking to Gavin for answers? Read what it says. Mankind was only evil continually and God flooded the whole earth with water. Why is that so hard to grasp?
I think it's really important to let the text speak for itself, whatever it may be saying. I personally think it's unwise to try to tie that in too early to what extra-biblical evidence may inform us about what things actually happened. We may then be forcing the biblical author to say something he or she isn't saying. This seems to be a point of difference in the approach I'd lean to and the approach Dr. Ortlund is using. When I read the text for itself, I can just see two possible understandings that are reasonable and consistent. One is that the Genesis author believes and is teaching a universal flood, and it seems almost impossible for me to reconcile this with a local flood. The other is what I understand to be the mytho-history view of WL Craig, where (in my understanding, haven't read from Dr Craig on this) the author (and the Holy Spirit) are teaching true things to the audience, but is using a type of literature that need not be describing events as they actually happened, and incorporates a lot of allegory. In that case the important thing is what the flood teaches us, and the historical reality of even a local flood would I think only circumstantially be related to the text. I think trying to argue that the text literally teaches a local flood is really hard. It makes the account somewhat nonsensical. How does a local flood accomplish God's purpose to wipe from the earth people, animals and birds because he regrets he made them? (Gen 6:7) The purpose of the ark was to keep the various kinds of animals alive throughout the earth (Gen 7:3). And the covenant God makes in chapter 9 is with all the animals on earth. That would only work with a local flood if all the land animals at the time lived in one area only, which I've not heard suggested in arguments for a local flood. I also see a lot of parallels between the water of the flood over the whole earth and the water at the beginning of creation, such as 2 Pet 3:5-6, and where Noah and his family are told to be fruitful and multiply over the earth. And when the text says the water rose to cover high mountains, and stayed for over a year, there aren't many ways to think of that as being 'local'. I'm sure there are no places today where water could cover even a reasonably sized mountain (say 1000m above sea level) without also practically covering the whole earth. I think we need humility, and shouldn't force a particular scientific view. I don't think it's impossible to take the text to be describing a local flood, just really really difficult.
I just finished to the end of the video and thought it was really good what Dr Ortlund ended with, that while the question of a local vs global flood is valuable, the main purpose is to point us to Christ. Amen!
@@Matthew-eu4pshow does it point us to Christ if it's false? If God can't communicate and his words cause people to believe something for thousands of years which then need to be disproved by apostates and infidels like Huxley, Lyle, Darwin how does that lead to Christ? Gavin is just delusional at best here.
@@TheBoredTheist the issue with this is that while the author may have taken a large regional flood to be global, the same isn't true of God. He's the one who said the purpose was to wipe mankind and the animals out completely, reversing his original creation except for those preserved on the ark. This still leaves the case where all living land dwelling beings on the earth would have to only have lived in the region affected by the flood. And I think the point about the water covering high mountains is still important here.
@@TheBoredTheist There is a question here about what it means for this scriptural account to be inspired. Can we take Genesis 6:7 as being a true representation of the reasons God had for the flood? I think there is a difference between saying that the author didn't know the extent of the world and so uses global language to portray a local flood, and saying that the author gives his own ideas about God's purpose for the flood, which don't actually represent those purposes accurately. If inspiration is actually just about the theological truths taught by the account, then I think there isn't really any bound to how much of it reflects a true historical event and how much not.
@@TheBoredTheist I think inerrancy is usually taken to mean that whatever is being affirmed by scripture (by being affirmed by the original author) is true. Understanding what scripture says typically means understanding what the author meant to be understood. I think that if Moses intends to communicate that a flood is universal in its effects on land-dwelling animals, then based on the inerrancy of scripture we would affirm that this is actually true. In my opinion the other option is what I have understood to be Dr Craig's position, that Moses actually doesn't intend the story as a whole to be taken literally, but is writing in a style that intentionally includes allegorical language and allegorical accounts. In this case what is being affirmed by Moses is the theological truth and not the historical account, meaning that even he himself may not have believed there had been a flood. If this is true I think it would still uphold inerrancy, but probably have other challenges. I think that to say that the theological teachings of the text are true, but not the historical propositions, would be to affirm a kind of inspiration but actually to deny inerrancy. These is just my personal understanding. Hope this doesn't come across as negative or just trying to challenge your position. I think what it boils down to is that working through these things in the first part of Genesis is not easy.
We need to not be so rash in our judgments towards other's opinions on the more minor issues of scripture. Whether someone believes in a global or local flood is not going to effect their salvation or flow into major theological issues. There is a lot in the bible that I am not 100% sure about, but I'll find out in heaven.
I'm a Charismatic Evangelical Christian who also believes in a local flood. I'm also a theistic evolutionist who believes in a literal Adam and Eve. I love your channel because it shows me there are other Christians like me. I believe the essential doctrine of the faith; - Yahweh God is a Trinity, one God in three persons that are The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Each person is indivisible yet share one essence. Each person is 100% God, not 1/3 God. - Jesus is Yahweh God manifested in the flesh. - Jesus died on a cross paying our sin debt in full. - God the Father physically raised Jesus from the dead for our justification - Salvation is a free gift received by grace through faith in Jesus. We are saved through trusting in Jesus for salvation. - Jesus will physically return
Yes, it's good you believe these doctrines. But, you don't believe He posesses the actual character He posesses. Or, you don't understand what the process of Darwinian evolution is all about. Neither do you believe what He has communicated in Genesis about the creation of the first man and woman. Evolution is a violation of God's character and nature to the extent He would have to violate His nature to create in that fashion. And that is one thing God cannot do.
How do you reconcile a TE view with a belief in a historical Adam and Eve? Genuinely curious here since I've heard several different TE people cache this out differently.
Gavin, God bless you for your kind heart. The video was so pleasant to watch. I still do not completely agree with you on this point, as I have some questions. But I can totally understand your perspective and really appreciate the loving and peaceful way that you try to present this information with. It will certainly be of much help to many.
Gavin, with al due respect, I don't think you really grasp the weight of the objection "why didn't Noah just move?" Noah had to build the ark, which would take a huge amount of time regardless of if you take the 100 years literal or not. In that time, he could have made it even to the southern most point of Africa (and back for that matter). Also if God had to send the animals to the ark, why not to safe land where the flood would not reach? In fact, there are only a hand-full of animal species that live exclusively in the Middle-East, so most of the species didn't need to be on the ark in the first place! Lastly, birds fly great distances all the time, so whats the deal with them? Why do they have to be on the ark? They don't need to be rescued from a local flood. I understand that local doesn't mean small, but in order to account for these objections the flood had to be so large that you might as well say it was global. Sure, you could say that it technically didn't have to cover the America's, but what do you gain with that? So we're left with two options, either you have to conclude that there is no obvious reason why Noah would have to build an ark and take 2 animals of every kind on board instead of moving, eventhough it was for a hand-full of animal species anyway, or say that Noah had to build the ark, because that was the only way to escape the disaster.
He could have spent all this time leaving, but we are told he is 'a preacher of righteousness' I think is the phrase. If he left the area he wouldn't be able to call the locals to repentance. Also sort of like how Ezekiel layed on his side for 430 days, the building of an ark for all that time serves as a warning to call people to repentance. As for the animal thing I am not sure, because the ark doesn't seem to be quite the right size for either a local or global flood
The ark was also made of papyrus reeds. Coated in bitumen, so it would not have actually taken as long as you might think. Though scripture doesn't clarify on the length of time used to build the ark either way.
@bettyblowtorthing3950 2 Peter 2 indeed says Noah was a preacher of righteousness, so that could explain why he had to build the ark. That is actually a good suggestion, thanks! But indeed, that doesn't explain the animals. Most creationists would say that God sent 2 of every kind, not species, so that would mean there weren't lions, tigers, and cats on board, just one pair of the feline family. If you grant that assumption, there would definitely be enough space on the ark that is over 100 meters long and 30 meters high.
Man, watching the whole video made WWUT’s tweet sound so silly. Can’t wait to laugh with brothers and sisters about this stuff when we’re in glory and everything is cleared up. But in the meantime I do hope more Christians can repent on this subject. I’m saddened by an instance I think I presented a stumbling block to friend when I believed in a young earth.
I watched the whole video and i think the exampel tweets you showed at the end and your 'caricatures' of them made strong points and were done not with contempt but with good amounts of compassion. You being abel to respond with a humble and tender heart to criticism that can be verry vitriolic is one of the greatest gifts God has given you Gavin. Praise be God.
Gavin, thank you so much for talking about these controversial topics. They are controversial but also very important. These videos will help so many people!
This video, and the original, were incredibly helpful and well done. Thank you. I’ve stayed away from these types of apologetic discussions because it seems like so many people seek to be pushing something (like the sufficiency of scripture being at stake, or conservative Christianity or something) rather than knowing, trusting, and believing the sufficiency of scripture and trying to figure out what scripture is saying within its own context. It’s literally basic hermeneutics 101 from Stein’s book. So thank you for the way you think and the way you approach and what you’re seeking to do with these videos. You’re a blessing to the time we’re in.
Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 2 Peter:3:6-7
I became a Christian in university at the age on 20. I was a geology major and went on to graduate school in that field. Before I became a believer I accepted everything being taught to me from a secular, materialistic, naturalistic world view. After I became a Christian I read the Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris and became an ardent young earth creationist. Over the ensuing years I began to realize a massive problem with young earth creationism. It is tied in with flood geology (e.g., the book The Genesis Flood). Flood geology postulates that all sedimentary rocks containing fossils were deposited by the flood of Noah. The fossils are the remains of living things killed and buried by the flood. There are innumerable problems with this. One problem is that, if the fossils are the remains of organisms that were alive at the time of the flood, then this means that they were all roaming planet earth at the time of the flood. This is why, for example, the Creation Museum in Kentucky displays human beings and dinosaurs as living together in the days prior to the flood. If these fossils represent living organisms buried in the flood, then they ALL were alive when the flood began. Here is the problem: resurrecting these fossilized creatures would create an impossible volume of living organisms on the surface of the planet when the flood began. There is no way that all of these fossilized organisms could have existed on planet Earth at one point in time (I.e., the day before the flood began). Second problem. More than 90% of the fossil organisms represent life forms that are extinct (like the dinosaurs). But, had they been alive at the time of the flood, they also would have been included on the ark of Noah. So, the volume problem and rapid evolution of existing animals that are alive today which had to be on the ark, is multiplied orders of magnitude by having to include pairs of ALL of the fossilized land creatures that we see in the rocks but that are now extinct. This is an impossible problem to resolve by flood geologists. One other thing about fossils. If they represent organisms alive at the time of the flood and buried by it, one would expect a certain amount of mixing of organisms, especially those of similar sizes and weighs. There are innumerable fossils organisms, both of sea creatures and land creatures, that are similar in dimensions, habitat, size, weight, etc. but we do NOT find them mixed up in the fossil record. The fossils are arranged systematically and in an orderly fashion with a clear progression of life forms that is so characteristic that we can use fossils to determine the relative ages of the rocks that contain them. If the flood of Noah buried all of the fossils, one might have expected some human beings who were either elderly, disabled or diseased to have been overcome relative early in the days of the flood and buried. Why do we not find fossils of some of these kinds of humans mixed in with some of what are now extinct organisms? Surely, some old men or women would have quickly perished and been buried relatively early in the flood? We do NOT find this, nor any other mixing of fossil organisms. They are arranged systematically and in an orderly manner with no mixing of older forms with younger, or younger with older, with the exception of certain “living fossils” who have survived the numerous extinction events that have occurred throughout earth history. I could go on with dozens of similar observations that make the young earth creationist model, which relies on flood geology to explain earth’s history, an impossible model to accept. One more observation, related to the history of science. In the early 19th century the nascent science of geology had progressed far enough that almost nobody, including virtually all evangelical scholars, scientists and theologians, believed in a young earth or in the flood of Noah as an explanation for the geological formations of the earth with their contained fossils. Flood geology and young earth creationism had essentially disappeared even before Charles Darwin wrote “The Origin of Species” which led to the theory of evolution. Attempts to tie in evolution with the abandonment of young earth creationism and the abandonment of flood geology are historically wrong. The theory of biological evolution of life and the geological theories about the history of the earth are two different things and have a separate and distinct history. I have concluded that the earth is immensely old and that life has existed on this planet for many millions of years. That thousands, if not millions, of species of life have lived and become extinct long before the appearance of human beings and the current organisms that live on the planet. I am an “old earth creationist.” I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, I am a born again Christian, I have served the Lord for 30 years on the foreign field. When I die I am going to be present with the Lord. When the trumpet sounds I am going to be resurrected to eternal life with Jesus. I believe that the early chapters of Genesis must be understood as non-technical and non-scientific accounts of the work of God in creation, the fall, and the lives of those who lived before the flood and up to the time of Abraham. I also believe that some sort of local flood view is likely to be correct as there is NO evidence in the sedimentary rocks that exist on planet earth that a universal deluge has engulfed the world in the past 10,000 years or so. By the way Gavin. Your father, Ray Ortlund Jr., was my faculty advisor while I was doing my M.Div. studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He was a lovely man, and I really enjoy the fact that his son is following in his footsteps. Keep up the good work.
If I may offer a little push back to a couple of your points: 1. Do you have any scientific paper or statistic that backs up your claim if all fossils were resurrected, they would overpopulate the earth? 2. All global flood models (to my knowledge) already account for extinct kinds (distinct from species). You may disagree with their numbers, but it isn’t a compounding issue, since they already account for them. 3. From what I understand fossils are not nearly as orderly as suggested by idealized models. Is this something you’ve studied or are you taking someone’s word for it? None of this is meant in hostility. You just make your statements as facts and I’m curious what evidence you’ve found to back them up. I obviously don’t expect you to cite all your sources on UA-cam, but if you could confirm you got your numbers from reliable sources, I’ll take your word for it.
@@TheBoredTheist... you realize that's because the phylogenies etc were _created_ based on the order of the fossil record, yeah? (This doesn't make them wrong. It just means it's not actually an argument to point out that they "agree".)
@@TheBoredTheist I appreciate your response. A question I’ve had about that is how do they determine a rock layer is, say, Mesozoic vs. Cenozoic? I’ve been under the impression that these were largely determined by the types of fossils found, but I’ve never studied it (meaning I’m asking a question and not making an argument).
@@TheBoredTheist Having seen only a little of Kent Hovind, I’m glad I’ve seen only a little. Of course I get that lower layers would have been laid first and higher layers laid later. But when it comes to the fossil record, aren’t we comparing fossils in the Americas and fossils in Africa, etc? Do geologists trace layers over tectonic splits to confirm the ordering of fossils? Or do we see enough stacked fossils (one fossil above another) within a region to see ordering in that way? I don’t tend to criticize a position I’m not familiar with, but I do have questions so I can understand it better.
‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth’ - note that the Earth now is already created! Then we have God saying that the Earth was ‘without form and void’. Then God proceeded to sculpt the Earth as a home for mankind. We are not given any dates or timescales in Scripture about this, so as the Earth was formed already there is the explanation for old rocks etc and other materials which we find by geological discovery. None of which negates the fact that God created everything, and neither do we need to throw out science. We are only ‘thinking God’s thoughts after him’.
I don't usually comment, but I just have to say how much I appreciate your videos on this topic. It is seriously such a blessing, and the wisdom and charity that you are handling it with is honoring to Christ. I was leaning in the direction of a local flood before these videos, but unsure about some things, but you have cleared up many questions and convinced me of a local flood. Thank you for your work and your eagerness to tackle controversial topics, even when you know you'll get some unwarranted criticism! Grateful for your ministry
Rev. Ortlund, thank you for this and your initial video. I personally believe the Bible sets forth the account of a global flood, but I am certainly open to being mistaken. I do not see the local flood view as a heretical stance unless, of course, it is the result of a low view of scripture, which you do not have. May God bless you.
I finally made it to the end. I don’t think we should get into fights over this issue, because it is not a salvation issue. However, my fear is that this is a slippery slope into not believing the Bible as historically accurate.
How so? He does not even come close to saying the Bible is not historically accurate. He is saying that the Bible is accurately portraying a local flood. If anything, he is wanting to be true to the Bible *alone* and is pointing out that a global flood necessitates details that are NOT found in the BIble.
These last two videos on the flood have been some of your best yet. They are so important to people within conservative evangelicalism like myself who hold these views. Very thankful for your work, keep it up.
the creation of the world is a miracle...the salvation of our very own soul....also a miracle. can we fully understand it? no. we trust it. we must trust it.
Thanks for the video, Gavin. I remember years ago reading one of Michael Heiser's books or video, whom you also quote, where he briefly argued for the local flood view. I found it convincing since I wasn't really attached to any dogmatic reading of Genesis 6 (btw the Nephilim account can be even more controversial 😂). Basically, I do not find it that important whether the flood was global or regional, and so if I am contextually inclined to agree with one over the other, I'd never consider the other position heresy. I am surprised people can get that emotional over this issue. I'd understand such kind of worries if one were to view the flood as a myth, i.e. fictional.
If you never disagree with your pastor, you need to grow and learn more. Your pastor does not know everything or get everything correct. @@redfrozenseven
@@axderkaI know that was kind of my point - many people actually disagree with their pastor- So I was wondering who agrees? I have a pastor friend who was recently let go because people didn’t agree with him so this was on my mind.
@@redfrozenseven Personally I have about 5 friends who immediately get defensive when anything is said that goes against what their pastor taught them.
I stand in agreement with you, actually. But, yes, it's a travesty when people don't learn to think through things themselves and are chastised when they do. @@redfrozenseven
I wish that more of our brothers and sisters in Christ thought like you do, Gavin. I agree on your need for theological triage, and my heart breaks when I think of all my friends who are ready to die on every single hill. They end up swinging at phantoms, and pushing everyone away in the process.
Your whole conversation about the flood has been great to listen to. Months back I watched the debates of Ken Ham and Bill Nye, and I felt an incredible amount of dissonance. I felt like I should be rooting for Ham’s side, but the entire conversation made me cringe. I finished watching hours of debate and was left confused about the science of the flood. You’ve helped tremendously by opening up the possibility of scientific fact and evidence not negating Scripture. Thank you! Also I’m looking forward to reading your new book this year!
Science cannot explain what took place so long ago. It is pure arrogance on their part to think so. The same goes for so much Astronomy - it can only go so far. The World and the Universe are far too complicated for us to understand absolutely, we should have humility and a good dose of common sense about these things. We will know one day when we see Jesus face to face. Science is a wonderful thing and has brought fantastic advances, but it is not infallible.
Christians love love LOVE to make mountains out of mole hills. If it's not this, it's about the length of creation days or the timing of the rapture. Peripheral subjects just have to be more important so the arguer can try to prove they are right about something and call someone else a heretic. All comes back to pride. I've always wondered about the flood and I enjoyed your thoughts. It doesn't make God any less amazing or powerful. Genesis is not about how as much as it's about Who.
Such a good job, brother. Thank you for your hard work and thoughtfulness on this and other issues, and especially for the manner in which you approach them. When I am tempted to despair over the state of online Christian discourse and divisiveness, videos like these are a great comfort. Keep up the good work!
I appreciate this thoughtful presentation. The idea that it has to be “either” “or” and that we can’t have reasonable discussion on subjects like this became a stumbling block for me. GOD equipped humans with the ability to reason. Someone said “when GOD saves our soul, changes our heart, HE does not cut off our heads”.
Taking this sort of contextualised and sober interpretation of creation and the flood actually made me become Christian (well, more or less, obviously Christ himself had a LARGE role 😂). When I first started looking into Christianity I basically took everything as metaphorical because I just didn’t see how this sort of stuff (creation in 6 days especially) could have actually happened, so I just assumed that the rest of the bible couldn’t be true, or at least couldn’t be literal . But when I found videos explaining how the first few chapters of Genesis have always had a wide range of interpretations, I then started to actually believe in Christ because these strange and ad hoc theories (the ones mentioned in the video and others about creation) weren’t packaged with it.
Oh yeah I had the same thing but I was a Christian and fell from my faith partially because of genesis. I started to take genesis totally metaphorically, and it created distrust since that wasn't a valid veiw. I was raised up to think YEC was the only way. Then I doubted the account of Christ even though the gospels in my estimation were SUPER accountable. All this to say, getting into the church fathers and deeper theology, opens your eyes so much.
I grew up atheist and always accepted evolution and big bang etc as gospel. When I met the Lord I realized there were spiritual forces blinding the entire world. At that point the idea that evolution etc was a lie became quite plausible, regardless of the evidence I learned about it. I consumed a lot of creationist science and was zealous about it. These days I am agnostic about whether Genesis is history. But I don't think Gavin's approach is plausible. If Genesis was intended by God as history then it clearly teaches global flood, literal Adam and Eve, etc. If God didnt intend it to be history, then it's just a metaphore about free-will.
If you can't imagine how Jesus created everything in 6 24 hr days, then, are you saying you don't believe he actually created whole fish and baked bread out of thin air twice when He was in Galilea? (Mat 14) Or how about healing lepers instantly? Giving sight to the blind? To saying nothing of raising Lazarus, and later, Himself, from the dead. Or how about the flour and oil which were miraculously replenished each day for Elijah and the widow he stayed with? How did Jesus command weather (Luke 8:22-25)? How does a universe with time, space, matter, and energy, just appear from nothing? Whenever Yom is used in scripture preceded by a number, or attached to the phrase, evening and morning, or evening, or morning.....it always means a 24 hour day. You just assumed God couldn't do what He actually told Moses He in fact actually did. If deep time is true, if billions of years have elapsed since the beginning, it can be shown from scripture our God doesn't exist.
@@scottb4579 Do you believe that the body and blood of Christ are literally consumed in the Lord's Supper? Did Jesus really say about the bread "this is my body"?
I am consistently referring people to your videos to help them learn how to think about these kinds of issues, regardless of where they land, and how to have these types of conversations with charity. Well done.
This was interesting but I'd very much like to hear your response to Christian Combative's 20 min video discussing several serious theological issues with the local flood view. I think he makes some very good Biblical points about the problem of covenants and the relationship the flood has with God's covenants.
@@TruthUnites Yes, you did - he really appreciated it and included it in his shorter follow up video. It's about 20 mins long and covers a couple of primarily theological issues with a local flood argument. If you have the time, I think it'd be very interesting to hear your thoughts on that.
@Scribeintheink that may not be the only reason, “God said, my soul shall not always strive with man.” It’s a strong possibility that fathers offered their daughters up to demons and gave them in marriage. Lame he bloodline perhaps. (Speculation)
Thank you for following up on this more. For the record, I don’t think this perspective makes you a heretic, though that doesn’t mean that the disagreements aren’t worth having. I’m sorry for how you were mistreated on Twitter, I hope that going forward more discussions like this can focus on the text of Scripture rather than imagining motives for people and calling names. I personally think there are some very important reasons from the text why a local flood won’t work, and I think that nothing bad can come of Christians discussing and examining Scripture as it might if we are distracted with motives and titles. You have drawn a parallel a few times between this conversation and geocentricism as an example, but it doesn’t quite work. Unlike geocentricism, and the verses you cite that have been used to support it, the flood is connected to sin, punishment, covenant, and promise. Specifically. It’s not just language of a simile being used to describe the unchanging nature of God or His glory, the flood is a singular historical event that was in response to, and affected those areas and creatures which have been affected (in a specific way) by sin. A curse on the whole earth. God’s punishment for the whole earth. Subsequently God’s covenant with the whole earth, and the promise that is given to the whole earth. I hope at some point you can engage with the final video I made on the topic, because I would like you to evaluate that a local flood means a local curse/punishment/covenant/promise. That the things promised to creation in Genesis 9 are specifically promised to those which were on the ark, and if you take your position of a local flood, you aren’t just talking about an untethered historical event, but rather the locality has to be applied to the reason for the flood and everything given after it. Geocentricism doesn’t have that problem. Even not for a video, but for your own study, it couldn’t hurt to take some quiet time to pray, and then go verse by verse through Genesis 6 and 9 in particular, and for each verse ask “What are the theological ramifications if this means local? Global?” For me it was a massive benefit and provided a lot of clarity and certainty on this issue that I frankly didn’t have before you challenged it. God’s blessings to you!
It was a great video. We need to take seriously scripture in its context. Scripture should challenge us and genesis is a mystery. Don't be discouraged. Its videos like your flood video, (specifically those from someone like IP) that helped take my faith seriously in an intellectual way.
Peter said some things Paul wrote you wrrste with so pray for understanding in Jesus name! But Peter said you would have to be WILLINGLY IGNORANT about world overflowing with water. ua-cam.com/video/RBPtFdD8-VU/v-deo.htmlsi=FJWIeyfaU3kLyWFz
You're more gracious than I am. There are a lot of modern day Pharisees out there. More people need to learn (be willing?) to think critically. I appreciate your channel!
Man I freaking lpve your takes. I've not watched all of your videos but each of them that I watched clears a doubt in my mind. Please do a take on slavery in the old testament, I'm getting bugged by that
Gavin, if you read this, please make clear whether you believe all people on earth at the time of the flood were living in the Mesopotamian region, or if you believe people were living outside the area you claim the flood occurred in.
I’m just starting the video, but I do find one point troubling. Dr. Ortlund has some quotes where scholars are saying “whole earth” can be unspecific (and I agree); but some of the scholars seem to be disregarding inerrancy. Here’s how I’m thinking about it: If the author of Genesis was trying to communicate that the flood was absolutely universal, but was wrong because he had an incorrect cosmology, that’s an error, no way around it. I know that’s not what Dr. Ortlund is arguing (he’s just saying the language can be unspecific to absolute extent), but some of the scholars seem to be just accepting error. I get that there are people far more liberal than this, so by comparison this would be very conservative. But I think that might be too strong a term if they’re functionally rejecting inerrancy.
@@TheBoredTheist I agree Moses didn’t have an advanced cosmology. My point is authorial intent matters. If he was *_trying_* to communicate that all the land universally was covered when it in fact wasn’t, that’s an error and I see no way around it. If his cosmology just ended up incidentally in the language, that’s different. As for scholars like Michael Heiser, I would call him conservative but not *_very_* conservative.
@@TheBoredTheist Thanks for your response. Notice I didn’t say “spherical earth;” I said “land universally,” meaning all the land there is for humans and animals to roam.
@@TheBoredTheist Here I’m not arguing what “universal” means to the author. I just mean “if universal means x to the author and he was wrong, then that’s an error.” This is what at least one of the scholars seemed to be saying “the author of Genesis was teaching x but was wrong.” I agree the authors aren’t infallible. But inerrancy is the doctrine that their writings are without error. That would hinge on authorial intent (or at least I don’t see how that could be avoided).
@@TheBoredTheist You’re confusing categories. When Scripture quotes Satan it’s correct because that’s what Satan said. It’s doesn’t mean Satan is correct, but the author appropriately quoted him. On the other hand, if Moses writing Scripture and teaching gets something wrong, that would be an error. The statement says “infallible … in all matters upon which it touches,” and “without error or fault in all its teachings.” If Moses, writing Scripture, *_teaches_* that the flood covered all land that man and animals can roam, and he was wrong, that’s an error in Scriptural teaching. Of course it’s reasonable to debate the Moses simply was using the language of the time and wasn’t teaching on the flood from a cosmological perspective. But if he was and he was wrong, that’s an error that would void inerrancy.
@@TheBoredTheist The question is authorial intent. We can’t arbitrarily say, “The author meant x and was wrong, but God wasn’t teaching that.” I’m okay with the idea Moses wasn’t teaching cosmology in the flood narrative. But at least one of the scholars Dr. Ortlund cites suggests the authorial intent was to teach all land was flooded, but we can now know that the author was wrong because of his limited knowledge. That is what I’m suggesting violates inerrancy.
It is certainly an interesting topic, and I appreciate the civility and knowledge in your discussion, Gavin. How can one progress their thought if they are unwilling to entertain discussion? The reluctance to have the discussion in the first place is perhaps the main driver for some intellectuals toward atheism. It is not the orientation of the belief itself-it is the lack of conversation, and also, sometimes, the lack of cordial interaction. Good video.
I so appreciate your heart in addressing this specifically and theological triage in general. I LOVE hearing these other explanations and how they appeared throughout church history. I don't know where I stand on this specific question (but frankly, at the moment, I don't think I care to decide), but you've opened my eyes to a greater realm of scholarly minds offering differing opinions. (Here and in many of your videos) I wish more people held that kind of attitude -- it's important, it can be super interesting, but it is NOT vital for all of us to freak out over or take an official stance on, and all the time and energy involved in thoroughly studying in order to do so.
@@cosmictreason2242being divisive by advocating views at odds with core Apostolic teaching. Really TRUE biblical heresy is about dividing the church, not disagreeing.
@@cosmictreason2242 --- Paul's letters are full of proto-creedal statements. Heresy before something like the Apostles Creed or the Nicene Creed were defined would be things like: denial of Christ's Resurrection (the Lord has risen indeed and has appeared to Simon); denying the Two Natures of Christ (he was descended from David according to the flesh, declared to be Son of God with Power according to the Spirit); denying that Christ Bodily Suffered and that he was Actually Crucified (and being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross); denying that Jesus is Actually God (confess with your mouth that Jesus is LORD; Christ though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, assuming human likeness); denying the Sacrificial nature of the Eucharist (as often as we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim the Lord's death until he comes); denial of Unity of the Church, denial of Baptism as Salvific, denial of God's Unity, denial of Unity in Faith and Praxis (There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.) Paul's letters predate the formal compilation of the four gospels by a number of years. Even without access to the gospels, we can see clearly where many modern denominations fall: JWs are Arians, denying Jesus's divinity; Oneness Pentacostals are Saballian / Modalist, denying the Trinity; Muslims are Docestists, denying the the true humanity of Jesus, denying his crucifixion and death and therefore his resurrection. They also deny the Trinity and much more. And we can see where the Church has always been: in full accord with the Apostles, holding the faith they transmitted from Christ, denying and fighting against heretical ideas.
@@cosmictreason2242 typically, but it's often not so cut and dry as that. Between different traditional denominations there are serious differences. They might agree on basic "go to heaven" basics, but half the reason those different denominations split from others at some point was someone had a disagreement, while fully trying to follow scripture, and those they tried to explain it to kicked them out. But meanwhile there are others who actively disagree but they DON'T get kicked out, and other still who TRIED to divide the body and HAD TO BE kicked out to save the church.
I really appreciate this and your former video. Before I became a christian I didn't really think about the flood or young earth creationism. My dad who was a nominal believer was a theistic evolutionist. I did my bachelors degree in psychology then a few years later I became a christian and started serious study eventually doing a masters in biblical theology. Most in my little corner of the church the CC/CoC are young earthers ie Henry Morris / Ken Ham while I have moved in the local flood interpretation. I'm heavy on context within the historical period.
Gavin, I am a new viewer and I don't post comments very often. I watched both videos and found nothing offensive in either one and I do consider myself to be conservative. I feel that your presentations are well thought out and well reasoned. In regards to the Genesis flood, unless you accept a small local flood, either a regional or global flood both require supernatural involvement. If you support a regional flood, I find myself trying to visualize what that would look like. The earth is roughtly 197 sq mi of surface area and the middle east is sill roughly 2.5 million sq mi depending on what you want to call middle east. Depending an where in Isreal you ar at the elevations are 2,000 to 4,000 ft. This of course assumes no geologic upheaval as some suggest as part af a global flood. So if it rains for 40 days and nights and the waters reach about 22.5 ft higher then something, presumably the local mountains using your hypothesis, that would mean the flood waters would have been over 4,000 feet above sea level. The water remain at this level for 150 days before it started to recede. This would seem to require 1 of three alternatives, 1. that area was much lower back than and arguably would need to be below sea level, 2. God put up a barrior around the known world so that the waters could not flow out to flood the rest of the planet or 3. there was a global flood to at least 4,000 ft anyways. Since over 70 percent of the plante is at sea level and a small percentage of the remaintder is abouve 4,000 ft(not documented, conjecture on my part). I don't see a fourth option. The second option would allow God to use the waters from the rest of the planet then to flood the region which still required something to hold the water in for 150 days before allowing them to flood back out. I don't know which one is right, they all require divine intervention so it comes down to picking your poison. Science will never accept any of this as they refuse to accept the possibility of the supernatural. I am legally blind so please extend grace for any typose! I find your talks to be intellectually honest. At times a bit beyond me maybe but still thought provoking. Thank yo.
IIUC Gavin's view leans towards the idea of "the numbers are symbolic", so it might not literally be 150, instead the "150 days" might symbolize something and instead it was just like a week or whatever. Though, myself, I don't see how that avoids the need for divine intervention, it just makes it needed for a shorter period. IMO the local flood raises at least as many problems as it solves, the main advantage is that it's more in line with the current mainstream views of geologic history while still taking Scripture somewhat seriously.
Thank you very much. I can’t begin to tell you how many Evangelical churches my husband and have left due to the eccentric belief systems that evolved. We are very much Bible believing Christians and we believe in the authority of Scripture. However, we do believe in scientific discovery. What would Moses have thought of the iPhone?
My main concern about the topic is the presence of some very dogmatic interpretations of events in Genesis 1-11 which overlap scientific concerns (i.e. young Earth/old Earth creation; global/universal flood). Anyone who knows the empirical science behind these things is being told in essence, ignore what you know and believe what we say. How many people walk away from the claims about Christ because someone who thought he was defending the Bible actually turned people away from it? Thanks, Gavin for a great exposition of this topic.
While I love and aspire to attribute the charitable motives that you do Dr. Ortland, I think that when you are considering what might be behind some of the Twitter attacks, there are at least two common motives or character flaws that you don't seem to consider. 1. Laziness. Some people are just lazy, and they just want to drop a bomb on Twitter (X) and keep watching their cat videos. They will not read a book, they will not watch your whole video. They don't have any interest in learning or growing, they simply want to reassure themselves that somehow their doom scrolling involved something noble (ie standing for the truth), and move on to the next distraction. 2. Trolling. Some people are either building or seeking to build a platform through saying the most belligerent, snappy appraisal of another's work possible. If they can get their first, be the most extreme and loudest, they can perhaps attract followers. Building a platform based on careful, charitable, and nuanced commentary and critique is just too slow and painful for most out there. All that to say, I hope they do not get to you too much. You are doing great work, and I am learning a ton from you. Thank you for doing real reading and research and setting an example for us all.
Gavin, thank you. Thank you so much for putting effort into this subject. I was exactly like what you described, I grew up in an evangelical home and NEVER knew there was any other view that is a legitimate Christian view. I now make it a priority to teach the bible to my children in a less restrictive manner. There are non negotiables, and then there are things we can discuss and wonder about without loosing our faith. Thank you again!
Made it to the end. Thankful for your videos and learn so much from them, I had no idea the young earth creationism takeover was so recent. Thanks for all you do!
After years of reading the early Christians, today I am a: - pacifist - credobaptist - someone who believes in the importance of obedience for salvation - Christus victor - a person open to other interpretations of genesis, I myself believe that the flood was local thank you for your wisdom in talking about this topic, it's been a blessing
Self defence extends to a national level. To protect ones children can take force and can take force on a national level. There is a reason that Israel destroyed the nations that committed mass child sacrifice, do you want to be conquered and ruled over by a God hating child sacrificing nation?
I also tend to think of it as a local flood. However, for Noah to bring pairs of all animals in the region, there still had to be an extreme miracle and I don't fully get the point of bringing the pairs of animals if there were plenty of animals surviving the flood in other regions. Another extreme miracle would be having all these pairs breed succesfully and I don't really see the point to do so, if the flood wasn't global. I don't fully know what to make of the story. As a new believer I took it all literal, now not so much. Sorry for sounding like a sceptic! Just being honest.
Hey Gavin! Thanks so much for this video. I just read Heiser’s approach to the flood in his Unseen Realm. Do you have any advice for young believers (or young church leaders) as they navigate this issue with older believers who take strong global flood positions on this issue? I currently work as a youth and college pastor (and hope to serve my church until i die or am called elsewhere). Any advice for how to encourage our other pastors (and elders) to be more open to local flood views? I have so much respect for these men and do not want to undermine their authority. Yet, I want to be faithful to the word and remove all stumbling blocks that would trip up our students. Thinking about compiling my thoughts and writing a paper… But I don’t want to present it to our leaders until I have met with our head pastor on this issue to establish a dynamic of peace and partnership.
I see this kind of response as the result of an overactive immune system. It's not good, but I understand the strong response against what they see as possible encroachments of liberalism, which has destroyed most of our greatest Christian institutions in the west. I hope they repent and apologize in the future though.
The distinction of Universal in respects to humanity but local in respects to the earth is something that I have not heard. That really does answer a lot of my concerns. Not to say my view has changed but I will look into it more.
only evil continually, all of mankind, except Noah and his family, were wiped out. This is the reason the Tower of Babel II is being erected now for satan to sit in, again.
A few months ago, an ex-student of mine reached out to me. We reestablished a rapport, and after a short while she asked me about my faith, and expressed an interest, and a desire to know the Lord. As you can probably imagine, I was more than happy to share with her. However, she has also recently shared the conflict that she is experiencing and the difficulty that she sees in trying to reconcile her faith and science. I shared your videos with her, along with some other resources, and assured her that science and faith can indeed coexist to the glory of God and that we don’t have to choose between one or the other. Thanks again for your ministry and the work that you do. You are a continual blessing to me and to many others. May the Lord continue to bless you and strengthen you in your ministry.
Did you not thus tell here that the Bible is disconnected from the objective creation of God and cannot convey what happened in creation in meaningful language that is cognate with both the events of creation and our experience of the world? That is, existentially locates us in the domain of God's word? Did you not then imply that human endeavour is a disinterested pursuit of knowledge, that seeks to put aside any particular preconceptions, naturalism, for example?
So, how does your student make sense of a platonized creation account that removes it from the real world, fictionalizes it, and substitutes other space-time events, which imply a completely different, grounding of reality, faith and knowledge? That is, if the creation account is not accurate to events, then something else happened, and it is this something else describes who we are, who God is, and our relation to the creation and creator.
Your Student only needs to Choose between the word of Ken Ham and the word of God , thats it. 🙂
How serendipitous! Today I listened to an interview Sean McDowell did with Sy Garte. He's a scientist and speaks on the "issue" of reconciling science and Scripture: ua-cam.com/video/Eti1TxLIxU8/v-deo.htmlsi=9L3Z878xsPshtjU3
As a Christian with a high regard for scientific discovery - it has been such a blessing in many areas to mankind; I have to say that Science can only go so far. What we are dealing with is so vast, complicated and profound, that were we to spend the next 10,000 years in cosmological and geological discovery, we would still be only scratching the surface! Just look at the recent findings in cosmology that have overturned a lot of what was believed before. Science changes and develops, the Word of God never. As the Lord Jesus Christ said; ‘Your Word is truth’. (John 17:17 Bible).
Well you definitely didn't do her any favors sharing THIS guys vids, the garbage he spouts will just make her more confused, not help her.
I love how every second video released by Gavin is a response to criticism lol
Everyone wants a piece of Ortlund
Or, everyone is obeying God and "rebuking and correcting with all long suffering" 2 Timothy 4:2
@@cosmictreason2242”Rebuking and correcting” implies that they have a legitimate perspective, or knowledge that Ortlund does not have, which I have not seen. What I have seen is frankly embarrassing.
@@cosmictreason2242more from ignorance and indoctrination!
@justinhawes1593 Stop defending an error. Dr. Ortlund is not infallible.
@@cosmictreason2242 That ain't it
I’m concerned people don’t understand the severity of calling someone a heretic.
I mean, one has to think how that ruler will be applied to them, and I guarantee they're not thinking in those terms.
I like Redeemed Zoomer for this reason also among many 👍
It's the new "racist."
@@JonJaeden it's ugly and shocking to me how liberaly people apply heresy to anyone who happens to disagree with them. It comes down to rhetoric, demonizing your oponant is easier than facing the arguments.
I can *guarantee* that some of the radtrad Catholics don't. 🤦🏼♂️ They're even calling the Pope a heretic!
Gavin: I had never heard of this view before. But as you presented it, I went from "NO" to "I'm listening". Thanks for all you do!
Same here.
The problem is YEC propagate that their view is the only legitimate and plausible view. And I say that as a YEC who beleives in a young earth and a global flood. That being said I find it embarrassing that YEC takes such an extreem position in that those who disagree are frequently called into questions of not beleiving the Bible, teaching false doctrine among other serious accusations. Personally I beleive we as Christians should achnowledge our limits in Biblical interpretation.
The idea that Gavin Ortlund could be lumped into the category of "progressive Christian" is simply laughable. Gavin is always a champion of having a biblically grounded foundation..... Megan Basham's response to Gavin really takes the cake. Unreal.
It all begins with "Did God REALLY say..."
Take what God says plainly or seek his understanding on it, don't be doubleminded seeking the opinions of man to validate your understanding of God.
@@kriegjaeger🤦🏻♂️
@@jamesb6818 Absolutely it is a facepalm situation when people cannot take God at his word.
@@kriegjaeger
Question for you, in Exodus 10:15 it says that God brought the plague of locusts from a east wind and “they covered the face of 👉🏻the whole earth, 👈🏻so that the land was darkened;”
Do you believe that North America and Australia were covered in locusts during this plague?
@@jamesb6818are there context clues in the text that say one way or the other 🤔
As a newer Christian, it's just so strange to me seeing this level of backlash towards these more in-house issues (like the flood or the age of the earth).. but then nowhere NEAR that same level of zeal from these same Christians in confronting ACTUAL unquestionable heresies like unitarianism, etc.
Don’t get thrown by these issues. Debates have existed from the beginning of time. As a very wise pastor has said ‘the main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things”. Keep on keeping on and do not let anyone or anything cause you to lose your adherence to Jesus. All things will become clear eventually when we meet him face to face. I have been a Christian for over 50 years and have heard all sorts of things in my lifetime, nothing will shake me from my absolute and complete trust in Jesus Christ’s sacrifice for my sins, and his love for me!
The flood and the age of the earth are much more than in-house issues. They are foundational topics that call into question the integrity and reliability of Scripture itself.
We take what God gives us in his Word. We stand on his promises and his faithfulness and what he has done for us through Christ’s work on the cross and his resurrection. We will never know everything or we would be God. God does not lie. His Word is true. Pray for the Holy Spirit’s insight into the Scriptures. What we don’t understand in our limited thinking and knowledge in his Word, we take on faith. What is important is that Jesus, who is God, mentioned the flood event and Noah. We know it happened. Jesus Christ is LORD and he was raised from the dead to save those who believe. That’s what’s important. Continue in faith, loving and serving the Lord! 😊🙏🏼♥️🙌🏼✝️
Yes, sadly, we often are firecest towards those closest to us :( Hold fast, brother, and learn to be an example both truth and grace - we can disagree, even strongly, in love.
To be frank it would be because those genuine heresies, #1 are pretty much settled and labeled correctly, and #2 are far more rare than the debates over the age of the Earth and creation as well as the literal nature versus metaphorical nature of Genesis.
I have yet to meet an actual Unitarian but have met MANY people who question their faith because of the creation story and the flood. These things need addressing and what I find, personally, is a prioritization of modern science over scripture as is. So, while I don't think believing in a global flood is an issue of salvation I do think it strikes at a very real problem of people questioning the authority and legitimacy of scripture.
Anyone who when they disagree lowers their argument to personal attacks immediately destroys their own credibility. If they believe their position is correct, argue on the merits and facts. Childish name calling just makes them look petty.
Is it childish to say Ortlundism and Ortpinions? I feel like that actually honors Gavin since he basically runs his own denomination and pretends he’s Baptist.
@@thegoatofyoutube1787 tell us youre unable to think critically without saying it directly
@@jonathanw1106 You want a critical thinking exercise, try this: how can individual Christians distinguish between divinely revealed truths and their own strong opinions, especially since Christian leaders disagree about what the Bible teaches? Also, how did Christians understand their faith for four centuries without a Bible and fifteen centuries of widespread illiteracy, no printing press, and hardly anyone being able to afford a Bible? Take those for a spin, Mr. Free Thinker.
@@jonathanw1106 Critical thinkers don’t follow teaching movements that launched 15 centuries after their Lord started his church.
@@thegoatofyoutube1787 like protestants?
Thank you for posting this - it is hugely encouraging. I have often felt guilty for not taking the flood story as global because it felt like I was doubting inerrancy. But to know that many learned and conservative Christians believe the same means I am not swimming alone.
😮Gavin is an absolutely incredible spokesman for Christianity. Thoughtful, well-researched, mature, and longsuffering.
Most importantly, the health of the faith is his highest concern.
Well done here!
Spokesman for the Ortlundism wing of Christianity* A delightful and eclectic blend of views based on Gavin’s hunches. “Augustine was wrong about sacraments, C.S. Lewis was wrong about purgatory, Martin Luther was wrong about Mary, most Christians through history have been wrong about baptism.” We are truly blessed to have Gavin as our UA-cam shepherd!
Gavin Ortlund doesn’t speak for Christianity. He speaks for a small sect of “Christians”.
@CurtosiusMaximus828 Hmmm. Too many in the Pastorate/ Priesthood seem to have a heavy investment in division. The business of anything is about finding a niche market isn't it? Either that or absolute rule.
@thegoatofyoutube1787 Gavin's preference would be for us all to have a wisdom about theological triage. Division suits many in the Pastorate / Priesthood who are heavily invested in their niche (and there are those who miss absolute rule).
Christianity needs to move past the nonsense of division. Stick to first tier doctrines and go live the Christian life. Is there a reason we have to make following God's will complicated? No, there is NO good reason for it.
Anyone preoccupied with maintaining their buildings and positions in Christianity will continue to fail the faith because they are preoccupied with the temporal.
The Catalysm of the Kingdom of Heaven will help you understand.
@@thecatalysm5658 there didn’t used to be division. Before the Protestant revolution there were 2 churches. Thats it. The Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church. That’s it. Just 2. Protestants introduced a novel concept called “sola Scriptura” and now there are literally thousands of churches. The division comes from people like Gavin and other Protestants using Christianity as a play thing that they just make up as they go along based on their own subjective interpretations of scripture and history. If you want to move past division, then move past Protestantism and join the church Jesus Christ established. It’s the only way, period.
I was disheartened by Basham and Zeisloft’s response. I am always inspired by your continued charity and ability to interact with it honestly and with sincere grace.
Basham graciously apologized. I doubt Zeisloft will
People on Twitter were not charitable in their responses to your video???? I'm SHOCKED 😲 😅
Seriously, I appreciate your grace in the face of all the ad hominem attacks. Thank you for this video.
It wasn’t even a response to the video, it was a response to the title
@@Karla-rf4nn facts
I am very happy you decided to post about this. I am of the belief that the flood was local, my wife tends to be on the whole earth flood. We both enjoyed your video because of how carefully and respectfully you handle these topics. You single handedly convinced me not to jump into Catholicism against me wife’s wishes because of certain arguments and concerns you have posted about. All in all I’m sorry for all of the pushback, but I’m very happy about you posting these informative and respectful videos.
God bless you and your family!Its not easy having some theological differences with your spouse but I pray that the Lord continues to give you both humility and unity in your marriage despite having some differences.❤
What was your favorite point Gavin made that stopped you from being Catholic? You should continue to prayerfully explore and consider Catholicism. Gavin does not accurately portray church history (when it comes to the Catholic question). Probably the best example of that is Augustine who Ortlund claims he "only opposes with fear and trembling" while Augustine confirms countless Catholic beliefs and views that Gavin ignores or rejects.
@@thegoatofyoutube1787 Hey, I should explain myself a little bit. If I took a test that would determine where I would land it would be Catholic. I’m drawn to it, I won’t lie about that, and many people that I look up to are Catholic. I just believe that Mr. Ortlund is genuine. So when he makes points about how Protestants should look at church history, that real presence isn’t silly for example, and when he focuses on unifying Christians no matter what denomination or tradition, that really impacts me. My wife and I have theological differences, but thankfully we don’t have theological disputes. So when Gavin shows how I can unify some differences between me and my wife it’s powerful for me.
But I can also say that it’s not like I have completely turned my back on the Catholic Church. I’m doing more study research and prayer than I ever have. Hope that answers some questions and I would love some prayers about all of it.
@@thegoatofyoutube1787 I can't speak for the person you asked the question to but for me it was his video on the origins of icon veneration. I found his argument to be absolutely devastating and I thought the responses to it were abounding in logical fallacies and borderline dishonest.
@@joshuas1834 Do you think the ancient church was concerned about people using images to remind them of the true Lord and enrich their prayer life (icons in the church) or do you think they were concerned with idolatry and scandal? Anyone who’s been steeped in Catholicism or Orthodoxy will tell you that images are not being worshipped. We have our own idols today (sex, money, entertainment, etc.)… worshipping statues and images is no longer a mainstream problem. I’ll admit that I didn’t watch his icon video because I’ve lost patience with his dishonest comments (like pretending he rarely disagrees with Augustine). Icons seem like a pretty nuanced and inconsequential hill to die on. Catholics and Orthodox Christians who don’t think that they help the Christian prayer life don’t need to use them.
“I acknowledge also the holy apostles, prophets, and martyrs; and I invoke them to supplication to God, that through them, that is, through their mediation, the merciful God may be propitious to me, and that a ransom may be made and given me for my sins. Wherefore also I honor and kiss the features of their images, inasmuch as they have been handed down from the holy apostles, and are not forbidden, but are in all our churches” (Basil,Letter 360 [circa A.D. 370
Hey Gavin, I stayed with you right to the end. I’m so thankful for this discussion. It’s really helping me. I’m a “good faith onlooker” as you said. Thanks.
Thank you for creating respectful, productive conversation around these fascinating and at times contentious topics. Very grateful for your channel and the brave work you do.
Although, I still believe in the global flood. You have humbled me to not be dogmatic about my personal and human interpretation of Scripture. Thank you for doing this video
I really think some of the confusion around inerrancy stems from critiques like the one Megan launched. Your whole point is that Genesis doesn't teach a global flood, not that it does and instead we should reject its teaching for a local flood. I've never understood why this was hard for people to get
Agreed
The biggest thing for me is that along side the worldwide language dirrectly used to refer to the flood, all the descriptions of how the flood occurs pretty much eliminate a local interpretation. Like if this is a local flood what does "the fountains of the great deep bursting forth" have to do with it?
And the biggest descriptor that I dont see any way around a local interpretation is it describes the floods zenith as availing above the tops of the mountains some 15 cubits.
Local floods can only take place in basins of some kind, once the waters go over the boundaries of that basin, let alone any mountains around you are no longer at a local flood. The only way I've seen any local flood proponents address this is to suggest that thevdescription isn't actually describing the straitforward thing it is describing, and even though they might have no malicious intent behind it, I can't see that as anything other than disingenuously ignoring, or twisting what the text says to try to fit the local model.
@@anthonypolonkay2681I suppose a question for OT and Ancient Near East (ANE) scholars is: is there a precedent for writings similar to Genesis 1-11 to use hyperbolic language to prove a point? If the answer is yes, then it's possible that the Scripture is both truthful about the flood but may not have been meant to be perceived literalistically. Rather, it may communicating the completeness of the flood in accomplishing its goal. If I say, "My wife is the sun to my life, brightening my day" -- am I lying? Or is it that the style genre of my style allows for poetry (and/or hyperbole) and so the correct understanding IS NOT that my wife is a star in the universe that I'm somehow married to, but rather her presence is warm (kind) and overall blesses my life every day. Furthermore in my example, the overly literalistic reading of it misses the point completely. Now, I'm not an OT/ANE scholar but if Genesis 1-11 could continue a genre of writing that is similar to my example then it may be that the intended reading is not the overly literalistic, scientific reading but rather a communication of completeness of God's judgment.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 The genesis flood narrative only makes sense as a global flood. If you think genesis teaches a 'local flood' you seriously lack reading skills. Well you also lack geology skills, since the massive layers with fossils are indicators of global flooding in the past. And finally you lack history skills and are obviously ignorant of the vast amount of flood narratives in the legends of various nations prior to Christianity.
Any contender against Christianity will have a field day against Christians that try to be cute, by insisting that the flood was local.
@@metapolitikgedanken612 do you lack reading comprehension skills? My whole comment is saying that the text is talking about a global flood, not a local one. Where did it look like I argued for a local one?
Found this very helpful - thank you. I have an MA in theology and teach quite a bit in broadly Reformed Charismatic circles, and I’d never come across this view so well explained and argued. I’m much better for it! God bless and thanks for your ministry.
Seb, North Yorkshire, UK
God bless you, sir. I am learning so much from you, and your faith in Our Savior Jesus Christ is obvious in your work. Since joining your channel, I’ve been reading my bible more, praying daily, and studying church history. The Holy Spirit is at work, and I feel closer to Our Lord. I am struggling to find a church, but I know He will lead me. Thank you Dr. Ortlund for all of your videos, especially the devotional and sermon based content. May the Lord continue to guide you and protect you ❤🙏
Excellent work Gavin. You are much kinder and gentler than I could ever be in your situation.
I admire your humility and the pastoral heart that emanates from you in every one of your UA-cam videos. I have benefited greatly from them. Because of you I have a better understanding of some of the positions my brothers and sisters in Christ hold. It precisely your earnestness, gentleness, humility, and intelligence that have attracted me to your material. Keep up the good work. You are a wonderful representative of what it is to be a a Christian. I thank God for you and that you have chosen to put yourself in a position to have a wider audience. The world needs to see Christians who are as intelligent as you and behave in the godly way that you do. Well done brother!
Being raised in a pentecostal church and school, its unfortunately the same way with dispensationalism. If you even talk or preach on anything other than pre trib rapture they lose it and call you names, yet its okay for them to to teach dispensationalism. Keep up the good work Dr. Ortlund love your channel
I'm an Indonesian, and though I still believe Noah's flood reached here, I know this issue is not a communion breaker. Local flood proponents are not heretics
What's the criteria to distinguish heresy from something else?
They absolutely are heretics. Gen. 6 shows God telling Noah that He was going to destroy the entire planet with water, and Gen. 7 says that _every living thing_ that was outside the ark died when the flood came. That doesn't sound like a "local flood" at all. Matter of fact, the "local flood" argument is something atheists use to discredit the Bible. If it shouldn't be tolerated when they use it, it shouldn't be tolerated when "Christians" argue in favor of it.
I applaud your response and video. Very thankful to God for you and I pray you continue to “unite” us around the issues that matter. I myself haven’t been married to either a local or global flood view. What matters to me is a flood happened that was massive enough to be used as God’s judgement on sinful ppl. Praying that we all learn how to have healthy debate about this without demonizing one another. It’s sad that those are the comments you received
I think you're doing incredible work Dr. Keep it up! I can't thank you enough. You've helped me immensely in my journey towards Christ.
Thanks Gavin for bringing the focus back on the gospel at the end of the video. Keep persevering with your channel which has been a tremendous resource for me, and do not be discouraged.
I think what is happening nowadays is that many conservative Christians are feeling a genuine threat from liberalism affecting our lives, families, schools etc. As such, there is a state of hypervigilence, figuratively speaking "swords are drawn". This leads to people being over defensive and overreactions such as labelling anyone who doesn't agree with all of their beliefs as a heretic, or the weaponizing of inerrancy of Scripture as a kind of catch-all argument against any differing viewpoint, or prematurely concluding that any argument that appeals to being loving (or to science) is a liberal lie.
It also reveals how poorly the church has done in the area of teaching how to read or study the bible and church history as well. Many simply take at face value what they are taught from the pulpit. Combine that with the echo chambers of social media, noone can hear each other anymore. Taking a step back and reminding us of the gospel really helped.
This video is a great example why I subscribe to this channel. I often disagree with the Gavin. In fact his arguments helped lead me to the Catholic Church. But despite not agreeing I respect that he always presents well thought out, researched, and reasoned arguments.
As one who fell into trappings of young earth creationism I truly hope and pray God will lift the vail from the eyes of those holding the belief. Especially those who feel believing in young earth creationism is a required dogma of the faith. The truth will always set us free.
So appreciate you, Gavin…..just started in a 9 week study at my church, Grace Church , Greenville SC, on Genesis 1-12. You are dovetailing so well with our study with regard to the context of the culture at the time Genesis would ha been written…..very encouraging and eye opening to my faith journey . Humility is so lacking when fear dominates. Thank you for truthing with love AND humility.
thanks - may the Lord be with you as your church as you study!
Wonderful video, thoughtful thorough treatment of the topic. I pray you stay encouraged as you pursue issues like this Dr. Ortlund. Many people are grateful for the time, energy, and knowledge you share. It’s incredible that some people actually attribute negative motives to you. I can’t help but wonder whether they even watched your earlier video, or have seen anything else you’ve produced. Your expertise; ability to research and summarize; and concern for truth, fellowship, and integrity are plain. I loved your point in this video about Christian’s not making the faith look foolish on account of their own foolishness. I share your burden about this issue. The truth and beauty of God shouldn’t be obscured for lack of understanding or humility on our part; in fact, it’s our purpose to glorify God by displaying the truth about Him. The historical survey of views you provided was also eye opening for me. You’re right that so much is unknown, even about relatively recent history. We need more people contextualizing controversial topics so that everyone can know the lay of the land. Thanks again for all your work.
Thanks so much, so glad it was of use!
Regarding 2 Peter 3, the globalness of the flood is not only indicated by the word "world", which you rightly point out can mean different things, but also the fact that the flood is associated with the creation and final destruction of the world; two other global events.
The creation and destruction too are not referring to a spherical earth.
Hi Gavin, much love from Sydney! Watched your two videos together and walked away learning more about Christian humility than whether the flood was global (not to downplay your efforts, your case is persuasive and I'd like to keep thinking about it!)
I'm so sorry that you went through another Twitter war (teary as I type)! Our Lord never said that the world will know that we are His disciples if we cancel each other on Twitter. I guess with pastor Begg's recent controversy as well, I'm beginning to think harder about what godly disagreement looks like. I believe that how we disagree in the Body shows our love for one other more so than when we agree with one other all the time, because it is when we disagree that our godliness is put to the test.
This is a very pastoral video for me. You often use the phrase 'irenic approach', and I'm beginning to understand what it looks like. I'm resolved to use more humble speech to evangelise to my university friends.
P.S. Excited that you're doing more online ministry! Your videos increased my gospel assurance, and I aspire to be a Protestant who loves church history! Again, lots and lots of love and support from Sydney!
hey gavin. just watched this video together with your original video on your views on the flood story. and i just felt the need to offer some encouragement, for i can only imagine the grief you felt when you were being accused a heretic. i've been watching your videos, and above all the helpful content, i've been blessed by how charitable you are in responding to criticism (especially ones unwarranted and seemingly baseless). for that, i praise god for his work in you, through you, and in your ministry on truth unites. may we all humble our hearts to his word, and in love for one another as we grow to maturity in christ jesus. thanks for the videos! i thoroughly enjoy them!
Jesus Christ is the Truth and He said He came to divide with the Sword of the Word. The church uniting is all about ecumenism and the fulfilment of Revelation 13.3
@psalm2764 - I think the version of unity that this channel pushes forward is the one Jesus prayed for (John 17:20-23)
@@browillow The Great White Throne will reveal all the hidden things and bring them to light.
Your point that people are so concerned about liberalism without realizing what pressures their own subculture may be instituting is so relevant to the church’s issues today. I stumbled upon your channel a couple months ago. While I struggle with chunks of reformed theology, I appreciate your humility and approach to these topics. The literal approach to the Bible without concern for its context or literary style is very much a stumbling block and you are doing good and important work in the way you address these issues. I’m also thankful anytime someone mentions Dr. Heiser’s work as it as been so helpful in understanding the Biblical authors point of view
Thankful for fallen angels deception?
Ok, good faith dessenter here.
I have two concerns with this video (and a lot of agreement which I won't go in to):
1. The critical backlash you are getting from conservatives about 'did God really say' is a bit cynical and I agree that it's overstepping. However, the main issue is not ' you must believe my literal interpretation or you are a compromising liberal.' the main issue is: could a liberal critic use your logic to poke further holes in the text with regard to the gospel? For example, if exaggerated language is common, how do we know that the disciples meant anything modern when they said they 'saw' Jesus risen in His body? How do we know that Jesus meant that He wanted to save literally any willing person and literally for eternity? How do we know that the communicators of the NT meant anything modern about life beyond this one?
This is what you should respond to when trying to desect legitimate varying views of the flood. You cannot merely assert 'well the cross is different.' you have to strengthen and harmonize the language especially when it appears similar to the exaggerated idioms you mention.
2. Your treatment of 2 Peter is appreciated but it needs more work. For example, you pointed out that Peter used the word 'world' when referring to wicked mankind. However, what about the verse right before the flood?
2 Peter 3:5-6 CSB
They deliberately overlook this: By the word of God the heavens came into being long ago and the earth was brought about from water and through water. [6] Through these the world of that time perished when it was flooded.
Are you suggesting that Peter did not believe that Gen 1 was talking about the whole literal planet? Because that seems to be the immediate context for his parallel to the flood.
Additionally, Peter grounds his view of the destruction of the world by fire with the flood:
2 Peter 3:7,10 CSB
By the same word, the present heavens and earth are stored up for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. [10] But the day of the Lord will come like a thief; on that day the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, the elements will burn and be dissolved, and the earth and the works on it will be disclosed.
What did Peter mean by this in light of a local flood?
Please respond and thanks
Very well put! As we are dealing with a period deep in the mists of time, perhaps the whole human race existed only in the Middle East, and there were no other peoples in the far flung continents until after Babel dispersed them. Just a thought! And as I have commented elsewhere, why was in necessary for Noah to take animals into the Ark to preserve them if it was just a local flood? Just thinking, and not coming down on one side or the other in this.
I’d highly encourage you watch his other videos on this topic and Genesis.
I started reading Bavinck a little while back and he’s been so encouraging to me! Just enough outside our modern bubble that I can still understand him and yet providing perspective I never received in the current evangelical world.
I was reading my son’s recent book report on some of the pilgrims and it brought this video back to my mind. In his reading, the phrase, “new world” kept occurring and he kept mentioning this in conversation about his book report.
To think that the local flood view would be heresy based on the usage of world being a regionally used word is not far stretched. The people in the time of the pilgrims viewed what is now America as “a whole new world”. While not used in the exact same sense, it is a striking similarity. For them, the world was the region they knew of, the region they lived in. For us, we know the world as the planet because we can view images of earth from satellites. Even the best maps at the time were drawn from the perspective of high-points on earth. Their understanding was limited to what they at the time. Just as is ours.
So no, this idea is not far stretched or “Heresy”. It is plausible.
Thanks, Gavin! Great encouragement to enter the conversation on important matters with love and charity.
I think Gavin is wrong about the local flood interpretation, but I think the issue of how we treat people with whom we disagree has more immediate practical importance than the local vs. global flood issue. The urge to assess the motives of others is a temptation that we must fight against. I don’t even trust my assessment of my own deepest motives, so how unwise must it be for me to assess the motives of others. I also think theological triage is hard and we need to think carefully about it. I recommend people watch (or rewatch) Gavin’s video from a year ago called “Theological Triage: Why It Matters” where he explains a four-tiered ranking system approach to triage, and ask yourself which of the four ranks you would assign to the local vs. global flood issue. If it’s an issue of heresy vs. orthodoxy then it’s in rank 1, which would mean it’s of similar importance to the deity of Christ. Does anyone really want to say that? If so, I would be interested to understand your reasoning. Finally I would say that major young-earth creationist organizations (like AiG and CMI) repeatedly state that one can hold wrong beliefs about these issues and still be saved, and that there are other doctrines such as the resurrection that are more important. If you make the global vs local flood views an issue of orthodoxy vs. heresy you are stepping outside the mainstream of YEC views.
My husband thinks in a very similar way to you on a lot of these topics. He has forced my brain to be open to really thinking about scripture and what it truly says and not what I have been told as someone raised in Christianity.
then why are you looking to Gavin for answers? Read what it says. Mankind was only evil continually and God flooded the whole earth with water. Why is that so hard to grasp?
I think it's really important to let the text speak for itself, whatever it may be saying. I personally think it's unwise to try to tie that in too early to what extra-biblical evidence may inform us about what things actually happened. We may then be forcing the biblical author to say something he or she isn't saying. This seems to be a point of difference in the approach I'd lean to and the approach Dr. Ortlund is using.
When I read the text for itself, I can just see two possible understandings that are reasonable and consistent. One is that the Genesis author believes and is teaching a universal flood, and it seems almost impossible for me to reconcile this with a local flood. The other is what I understand to be the mytho-history view of WL Craig, where (in my understanding, haven't read from Dr Craig on this) the author (and the Holy Spirit) are teaching true things to the audience, but is using a type of literature that need not be describing events as they actually happened, and incorporates a lot of allegory. In that case the important thing is what the flood teaches us, and the historical reality of even a local flood would I think only circumstantially be related to the text.
I think trying to argue that the text literally teaches a local flood is really hard. It makes the account somewhat nonsensical. How does a local flood accomplish God's purpose to wipe from the earth people, animals and birds because he regrets he made them? (Gen 6:7) The purpose of the ark was to keep the various kinds of animals alive throughout the earth (Gen 7:3). And the covenant God makes in chapter 9 is with all the animals on earth. That would only work with a local flood if all the land animals at the time lived in one area only, which I've not heard suggested in arguments for a local flood. I also see a lot of parallels between the water of the flood over the whole earth and the water at the beginning of creation, such as 2 Pet 3:5-6, and where Noah and his family are told to be fruitful and multiply over the earth. And when the text says the water rose to cover high mountains, and stayed for over a year, there aren't many ways to think of that as being 'local'. I'm sure there are no places today where water could cover even a reasonably sized mountain (say 1000m above sea level) without also practically covering the whole earth.
I think we need humility, and shouldn't force a particular scientific view. I don't think it's impossible to take the text to be describing a local flood, just really really difficult.
I just finished to the end of the video and thought it was really good what Dr Ortlund ended with, that while the question of a local vs global flood is valuable, the main purpose is to point us to Christ. Amen!
@@Matthew-eu4pshow does it point us to Christ if it's false? If God can't communicate and his words cause people to believe something for thousands of years which then need to be disproved by apostates and infidels like Huxley, Lyle, Darwin how does that lead to Christ? Gavin is just delusional at best here.
@@TheBoredTheist the issue with this is that while the author may have taken a large regional flood to be global, the same isn't true of God. He's the one who said the purpose was to wipe mankind and the animals out completely, reversing his original creation except for those preserved on the ark. This still leaves the case where all living land dwelling beings on the earth would have to only have lived in the region affected by the flood. And I think the point about the water covering high mountains is still important here.
@@TheBoredTheist There is a question here about what it means for this scriptural account to be inspired. Can we take Genesis 6:7 as being a true representation of the reasons God had for the flood? I think there is a difference between saying that the author didn't know the extent of the world and so uses global language to portray a local flood, and saying that the author gives his own ideas about God's purpose for the flood, which don't actually represent those purposes accurately.
If inspiration is actually just about the theological truths taught by the account, then I think there isn't really any bound to how much of it reflects a true historical event and how much not.
@@TheBoredTheist I think inerrancy is usually taken to mean that whatever is being affirmed by scripture (by being affirmed by the original author) is true. Understanding what scripture says typically means understanding what the author meant to be understood.
I think that if Moses intends to communicate that a flood is universal in its effects on land-dwelling animals, then based on the inerrancy of scripture we would affirm that this is actually true. In my opinion the other option is what I have understood to be Dr Craig's position, that Moses actually doesn't intend the story as a whole to be taken literally, but is writing in a style that intentionally includes allegorical language and allegorical accounts. In this case what is being affirmed by Moses is the theological truth and not the historical account, meaning that even he himself may not have believed there had been a flood. If this is true I think it would still uphold inerrancy, but probably have other challenges.
I think that to say that the theological teachings of the text are true, but not the historical propositions, would be to affirm a kind of inspiration but actually to deny inerrancy.
These is just my personal understanding. Hope this doesn't come across as negative or just trying to challenge your position. I think what it boils down to is that working through these things in the first part of Genesis is not easy.
We need to not be so rash in our judgments towards other's opinions on the more minor issues of scripture. Whether someone believes in a global or local flood is not going to effect their salvation or flow into major theological issues. There is a lot in the bible that I am not 100% sure about, but I'll find out in heaven.
I'm a Charismatic Evangelical Christian who also believes in a local flood. I'm also a theistic evolutionist who believes in a literal Adam and Eve. I love your channel because it shows me there are other Christians like me.
I believe the essential doctrine of the faith;
- Yahweh God is a Trinity, one God in three persons that are The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Each person is indivisible yet share one essence. Each person is 100% God, not 1/3 God.
- Jesus is Yahweh God manifested in the flesh.
- Jesus died on a cross paying our sin debt in full.
- God the Father physically raised Jesus from the dead for our justification
- Salvation is a free gift received by grace through faith in Jesus. We are saved through trusting in Jesus for salvation.
- Jesus will physically return
Repent and pray for wisdom and discernment. You are lost.
@@adverseinperpetuity lol no.
Yes, it's good you believe these doctrines. But, you don't believe He posesses the actual character He posesses. Or, you don't understand what the process of Darwinian evolution is all about. Neither do you believe what He has communicated in Genesis about the creation of the first man and woman.
Evolution is a violation of God's character and nature to the extent He would have to violate His nature to create in that fashion. And that is one thing God cannot do.
@@scottb4579 Explain
How do you reconcile a TE view with a belief in a historical Adam and Eve? Genuinely curious here since I've heard several different TE people cache this out differently.
Gavin, God bless you for your kind heart. The video was so pleasant to watch. I still do not completely agree with you on this point, as I have some questions. But I can totally understand your perspective and really appreciate the loving and peaceful way that you try to present this information with. It will certainly be of much help to many.
Gavin, with al due respect, I don't think you really grasp the weight of the objection "why didn't Noah just move?" Noah had to build the ark, which would take a huge amount of time regardless of if you take the 100 years literal or not. In that time, he could have made it even to the southern most point of Africa (and back for that matter). Also if God had to send the animals to the ark, why not to safe land where the flood would not reach? In fact, there are only a hand-full of animal species that live exclusively in the Middle-East, so most of the species didn't need to be on the ark in the first place! Lastly, birds fly great distances all the time, so whats the deal with them? Why do they have to be on the ark? They don't need to be rescued from a local flood. I understand that local doesn't mean small, but in order to account for these objections the flood had to be so large that you might as well say it was global. Sure, you could say that it technically didn't have to cover the America's, but what do you gain with that? So we're left with two options, either you have to conclude that there is no obvious reason why Noah would have to build an ark and take 2 animals of every kind on board instead of moving, eventhough it was for a hand-full of animal species anyway, or say that Noah had to build the ark, because that was the only way to escape the disaster.
He could have spent all this time leaving, but we are told he is 'a preacher of righteousness' I think is the phrase. If he left the area he wouldn't be able to call the locals to repentance. Also sort of like how Ezekiel layed on his side for 430 days, the building of an ark for all that time serves as a warning to call people to repentance. As for the animal thing I am not sure, because the ark doesn't seem to be quite the right size for either a local or global flood
The ark was also made of papyrus reeds. Coated in bitumen, so it would not have actually taken as long as you might think. Though scripture doesn't clarify on the length of time used to build the ark either way.
He doesn't realize the weight of the objection, because he doesn't really believe the ark was built
@bettyblowtorthing3950 2 Peter 2 indeed says Noah was a preacher of righteousness, so that could explain why he had to build the ark. That is actually a good suggestion, thanks! But indeed, that doesn't explain the animals.
Most creationists would say that God sent 2 of every kind, not species, so that would mean there weren't lions, tigers, and cats on board, just one pair of the feline family. If you grant that assumption, there would definitely be enough space on the ark that is over 100 meters long and 30 meters high.
Man, watching the whole video made WWUT’s tweet sound so silly. Can’t wait to laugh with brothers and sisters about this stuff when we’re in glory and everything is cleared up. But in the meantime I do hope more Christians can repent on this subject. I’m saddened by an instance I think I presented a stumbling block to friend when I believed in a young earth.
I watched the whole video and i think the exampel tweets you showed at the end and your 'caricatures' of them made strong points and were done not with contempt but with good amounts of compassion.
You being abel to respond with a humble and tender heart to criticism that can be verry vitriolic is one of the greatest gifts God has given you Gavin. Praise be God.
Gavin, thank you so much for talking about these controversial topics. They are controversial but also very important. These videos will help so many people!
This video, and the original, were incredibly helpful and well done. Thank you. I’ve stayed away from these types of apologetic discussions because it seems like so many people seek to be pushing something (like the sufficiency of scripture being at stake, or conservative Christianity or something) rather than knowing, trusting, and believing the sufficiency of scripture and trying to figure out what scripture is saying within its own context. It’s literally basic hermeneutics 101 from Stein’s book. So thank you for the way you think and the way you approach and what you’re seeking to do with these videos. You’re a blessing to the time we’re in.
Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
2 Peter:3:6-7
I became a Christian in university at the age on 20. I was a geology major and went on to graduate school in that field. Before I became a believer I accepted everything being taught to me from a secular, materialistic, naturalistic world view. After I became a Christian I read the Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris and became an ardent young earth creationist. Over the ensuing years I began to realize a massive problem with young earth creationism. It is tied in with flood geology (e.g., the book The Genesis Flood). Flood geology postulates that all sedimentary rocks containing fossils were deposited by the flood of Noah. The fossils are the remains of living things killed and buried by the flood. There are innumerable problems with this.
One problem is that, if the fossils are the remains of organisms that were alive at the time of the flood, then this means that they were all roaming planet earth at the time of the flood. This is why, for example, the Creation Museum in Kentucky displays human beings and dinosaurs as living together in the days prior to the flood. If these fossils represent living organisms buried in the flood, then they ALL were alive when the flood began. Here is the problem: resurrecting these fossilized creatures would create an impossible volume of living organisms on the surface of the planet when the flood began. There is no way that all of these fossilized organisms could have existed on planet Earth at one point in time (I.e., the day before the flood began).
Second problem. More than 90% of the fossil organisms represent life forms that are extinct (like the dinosaurs). But, had they been alive at the time of the flood, they also would have been included on the ark of Noah. So, the volume problem and rapid evolution of existing animals that are alive today which had to be on the ark, is multiplied orders of magnitude by having to include pairs of ALL of the fossilized land creatures that we see in the rocks but that are now extinct. This is an impossible problem to resolve by flood geologists.
One other thing about fossils. If they represent organisms alive at the time of the flood and buried by it, one would expect a certain amount of mixing of organisms, especially those of similar sizes and weighs. There are innumerable fossils organisms, both of sea creatures and land creatures, that are similar in dimensions, habitat, size, weight, etc. but we do NOT find them mixed up in the fossil record. The fossils are arranged systematically and in an orderly fashion with a clear progression of life forms that is so characteristic that we can use fossils to determine the relative ages of the rocks that contain them.
If the flood of Noah buried all of the fossils, one might have expected some human beings who were either elderly, disabled or diseased to have been overcome relative early in the days of the flood and buried. Why do we not find fossils of some of these kinds of humans mixed in with some of what are now extinct organisms? Surely, some old men or women would have quickly perished and been buried relatively early in the flood? We do NOT find this, nor any other mixing of fossil organisms. They are arranged systematically and in an orderly manner with no mixing of older forms with younger, or younger with older, with the exception of certain “living fossils” who have survived the numerous extinction events that have occurred throughout earth history.
I could go on with dozens of similar observations that make the young earth creationist model, which relies on flood geology to explain earth’s history, an impossible model to accept.
One more observation, related to the history of science. In the early 19th century the nascent science of geology had progressed far enough that almost nobody, including virtually all evangelical scholars, scientists and theologians, believed in a young earth or in the flood of Noah as an explanation for the geological formations of the earth with their contained fossils. Flood geology and young earth creationism had essentially disappeared even before Charles Darwin wrote “The Origin of Species” which led to the theory of evolution. Attempts to tie in evolution with the abandonment of young earth creationism and the abandonment of flood geology are historically wrong. The theory of biological evolution of life and the geological theories about the history of the earth are two different things and have a separate and distinct history.
I have concluded that the earth is immensely old and that life has existed on this planet for many millions of years. That thousands, if not millions, of species of life have lived and become extinct long before the appearance of human beings and the current organisms that live on the planet. I am an “old earth creationist.”
I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, I am a born again Christian, I have served the Lord for 30 years on the foreign field. When I die I am going to be present with the Lord. When the trumpet sounds I am going to be resurrected to eternal life with Jesus.
I believe that the early chapters of Genesis must be understood as non-technical and non-scientific accounts of the work of God in creation, the fall, and the lives of those who lived before the flood and up to the time of Abraham.
I also believe that some sort of local flood view is likely to be correct as there is NO evidence in the sedimentary rocks that exist on planet earth that a universal deluge has engulfed the world in the past 10,000 years or so.
By the way Gavin. Your father, Ray Ortlund Jr., was my faculty advisor while I was doing my M.Div. studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He was a lovely man, and I really enjoy the fact that his son is following in his footsteps.
Keep up the good work.
If I may offer a little push back to a couple of your points:
1. Do you have any scientific paper or statistic that backs up your claim if all fossils were resurrected, they would overpopulate the earth?
2. All global flood models (to my knowledge) already account for extinct kinds (distinct from species). You may disagree with their numbers, but it isn’t a compounding issue, since they already account for them.
3. From what I understand fossils are not nearly as orderly as suggested by idealized models. Is this something you’ve studied or are you taking someone’s word for it?
None of this is meant in hostility. You just make your statements as facts and I’m curious what evidence you’ve found to back them up.
I obviously don’t expect you to cite all your sources on UA-cam, but if you could confirm you got your numbers from reliable sources, I’ll take your word for it.
@@TheBoredTheist... you realize that's because the phylogenies etc were _created_ based on the order of the fossil record, yeah? (This doesn't make them wrong. It just means it's not actually an argument to point out that they "agree".)
@@TheBoredTheist
I appreciate your response. A question I’ve had about that is how do they determine a rock layer is, say, Mesozoic vs. Cenozoic? I’ve been under the impression that these were largely determined by the types of fossils found, but I’ve never studied it (meaning I’m asking a question and not making an argument).
@@TheBoredTheist
Having seen only a little of Kent Hovind, I’m glad I’ve seen only a little.
Of course I get that lower layers would have been laid first and higher layers laid later. But when it comes to the fossil record, aren’t we comparing fossils in the Americas and fossils in Africa, etc? Do geologists trace layers over tectonic splits to confirm the ordering of fossils? Or do we see enough stacked fossils (one fossil above another) within a region to see ordering in that way?
I don’t tend to criticize a position I’m not familiar with, but I do have questions so I can understand it better.
‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth’ - note that the Earth now is already created! Then we have God saying that the Earth was ‘without form and void’. Then God proceeded to sculpt the Earth as a home for mankind. We are not given any dates or timescales in Scripture about this, so as the Earth was formed already there is the explanation for old rocks etc and other materials which we find by geological discovery. None of which negates the fact that God created everything, and neither do we need to throw out science. We are only ‘thinking God’s thoughts after him’.
I don't usually comment, but I just have to say how much I appreciate your videos on this topic. It is seriously such a blessing, and the wisdom and charity that you are handling it with is honoring to Christ. I was leaning in the direction of a local flood before these videos, but unsure about some things, but you have cleared up many questions and convinced me of a local flood. Thank you for your work and your eagerness to tackle controversial topics, even when you know you'll get some unwarranted criticism! Grateful for your ministry
Here's a perfect example of the harm you're causing, Gavin. You've helped this person accept their unbelief.
Thanks so much for the feedback! So glad it was useful to you.
@@c.m.granger6870 I think its likely deliberate. We're in the time of itching ears.
Gavin, Stayed with you to the end. You are always gracious, encouraging and Christ centered. Don’t grow weary in doing well!
Rev. Ortlund, thank you for this and your initial video. I personally believe the Bible sets forth the account of a global flood, but I am certainly open to being mistaken. I do not see the local flood view as a heretical stance unless, of course, it is the result of a low view of scripture, which you do not have. May God bless you.
Your videos has been a great blessing for me. They have encouraged me to read and learn more about all topics related.
I finally made it to the end. I don’t think we should get into fights over this issue, because it is not a salvation issue. However, my fear is that this is a slippery slope into not believing the Bible as historically accurate.
How so? He does not even come close to saying the Bible is not historically accurate. He is saying that the Bible is accurately portraying a local flood. If anything, he is wanting to be true to the Bible *alone* and is pointing out that a global flood necessitates details that are NOT found in the BIble.
These last two videos on the flood have been some of your best yet. They are so important to people within conservative evangelicalism like myself who hold these views. Very thankful for your work, keep it up.
thanks a lot Chandler!
the creation of the world is a miracle...the salvation of our very own soul....also a miracle. can we fully understand it? no. we trust it. we must trust it.
Thanks for the video, Gavin. I remember years ago reading one of Michael Heiser's books or video, whom you also quote, where he briefly argued for the local flood view. I found it convincing since I wasn't really attached to any dogmatic reading of Genesis 6 (btw the Nephilim account can be even more controversial 😂). Basically, I do not find it that important whether the flood was global or regional, and so if I am contextually inclined to agree with one over the other, I'd never consider the other position heresy. I am surprised people can get that emotional over this issue. I'd understand such kind of worries if one were to view the flood as a myth, i.e. fictional.
I’ve learned that for most Christians “heresy” simply means you disagree with what my pastor said.
People agree with their pastor?
If you never disagree with your pastor, you need to grow and learn more. Your pastor does not know everything or get everything correct. @@redfrozenseven
@@axderkaI know that was kind of my point - many people actually disagree with their pastor- So I was wondering who agrees?
I have a pastor friend who was recently let go because people didn’t agree with him so this was on my mind.
@@redfrozenseven Personally I have about 5 friends who immediately get defensive when anything is said that goes against what their pastor taught them.
I stand in agreement with you, actually. But, yes, it's a travesty when people don't learn to think through things themselves and are chastised when they do. @@redfrozenseven
I wish that more of our brothers and sisters in Christ thought like you do, Gavin.
I agree on your need for theological triage, and my heart breaks when I think of all my friends who are ready to die on every single hill. They end up swinging at phantoms, and pushing everyone away in the process.
Your whole conversation about the flood has been great to listen to. Months back I watched the debates of Ken Ham and Bill Nye, and I felt an incredible amount of dissonance. I felt like I should be rooting for Ham’s side, but the entire conversation made me cringe. I finished watching hours of debate and was left confused about the science of the flood. You’ve helped tremendously by opening up the possibility of scientific fact and evidence not negating Scripture. Thank you! Also I’m looking forward to reading your new book this year!
The great science debate neither Ham nor Nye are scientists , it was kind of a joke .
@@Terrylb285 The debate was a joke the amount of money AiG raised was not. This video might as well have been a direct response to AiG.
@@danhoff4401 I like how Ken ham used science to disprove a flat earth view ,but when it doesn’t support his view a new set of rules apply.
Science cannot explain what took place so long ago. It is pure arrogance on their part to think so. The same goes for so much Astronomy - it can only go so far. The World and the Universe are far too complicated for us to understand absolutely, we should have humility and a good dose of common sense about these things. We will know one day when we see Jesus face to face. Science is a wonderful thing and has brought fantastic advances, but it is not infallible.
@@petercollins7848 who says science can’t explain what has happened?, and if so how has it been proved , the Bible teaches otherwise
Christians love love LOVE to make mountains out of mole hills. If it's not this, it's about the length of creation days or the timing of the rapture. Peripheral subjects just have to be more important so the arguer can try to prove they are right about something and call someone else a heretic.
All comes back to pride.
I've always wondered about the flood and I enjoyed your thoughts. It doesn't make God any less amazing or powerful. Genesis is not about how as much as it's about Who.
Such a good job, brother. Thank you for your hard work and thoughtfulness on this and other issues, and especially for the manner in which you approach them. When I am tempted to despair over the state of online Christian discourse and divisiveness, videos like these are a great comfort. Keep up the good work!
I appreciate this thoughtful presentation. The idea that it has to be “either” “or” and that we can’t have reasonable discussion on subjects like this became a stumbling block for me. GOD equipped humans with the ability to reason. Someone said “when GOD saves our soul, changes our heart, HE does not cut off our heads”.
Taking this sort of contextualised and sober interpretation of creation and the flood actually made me become Christian (well, more or less, obviously Christ himself had a LARGE role 😂). When I first started looking into Christianity I basically took everything as metaphorical because I just didn’t see how this sort of stuff (creation in 6 days especially) could have actually happened, so I just assumed that the rest of the bible couldn’t be true, or at least couldn’t be literal . But when I found videos explaining how the first few chapters of Genesis have always had a wide range of interpretations, I then started to actually believe in Christ because these strange and ad hoc theories (the ones mentioned in the video and others about creation) weren’t packaged with it.
Oh yeah I had the same thing but I was a Christian and fell from my faith partially because of genesis. I started to take genesis totally metaphorically, and it created distrust since that wasn't a valid veiw. I was raised up to think YEC was the only way. Then I doubted the account of Christ even though the gospels in my estimation were SUPER accountable. All this to say, getting into the church fathers and deeper theology, opens your eyes so much.
I grew up atheist and always accepted evolution and big bang etc as gospel. When I met the Lord I realized there were spiritual forces blinding the entire world. At that point the idea that evolution etc was a lie became quite plausible, regardless of the evidence I learned about it. I consumed a lot of creationist science and was zealous about it. These days I am agnostic about whether Genesis is history. But I don't think Gavin's approach is plausible. If Genesis was intended by God as history then it clearly teaches global flood, literal Adam and Eve, etc. If God didnt intend it to be history, then it's just a metaphore about free-will.
If you can't imagine how Jesus created everything in 6 24 hr days, then, are you saying you don't believe he actually created whole fish and baked bread out of thin air twice when He was in Galilea? (Mat 14)
Or how about healing lepers instantly? Giving sight to the blind? To saying nothing of raising Lazarus, and later, Himself, from the dead.
Or how about the flour and oil which were miraculously replenished each day for Elijah and the widow he stayed with?
How did Jesus command weather (Luke 8:22-25)?
How does a universe with time, space, matter, and energy, just appear from nothing?
Whenever Yom is used in scripture preceded by a number, or attached to the phrase, evening and morning, or evening, or morning.....it always means a 24 hour day.
You just assumed God couldn't do what He actually told Moses He in fact actually did. If deep time is true, if billions of years have elapsed since the beginning, it can be shown from scripture our God doesn't exist.
@@scottb4579 Do you believe that the body and blood of Christ are literally consumed in the Lord's Supper?
Did Jesus really say about the bread "this is my body"?
@@Galmala94 I mean I do believe it is literally his body but I'm also a theistic evolutionist so
I am consistently referring people to your videos to help them learn how to think about these kinds of issues, regardless of where they land, and how to have these types of conversations with charity. Well done.
How about asking the Holy Spirit to lead you into all truth and give you the mind of Christ?
Certainly! @@psalm2764
I just have to say, Gavin, your setup is so beautiful! The backdrop and lighting is so warm and cinematic.
Thank you ! Thank you! Thank you!
This was interesting but I'd very much like to hear your response to Christian Combative's 20 min video discussing several serious theological issues with the local flood view. I think he makes some very good Biblical points about the problem of covenants and the relationship the flood has with God's covenants.
I typed a comment in response to his first video, if I am recalling correctly
@@TruthUnites Yes, you did - he really appreciated it and included it in his shorter follow up video. It's about 20 mins long and covers a couple of primarily theological issues with a local flood argument. If you have the time, I think it'd be very interesting to hear your thoughts on that.
@@tategarrett3042 the "local flood argument" does not hold water.
@@psalm2764 I generally agree and I'd love to see Gavin and Perry continue their discussion on it.
@@tategarrett3042 the point is, that if you read the Bible there is no controversy. It's plain as day.
If Gavin is right, no need to consider how the nephilum survived the flood. “Caesar sent out a decree that the whole world should be taxed”
@Scribeintheink that may not be the only reason, “God said, my soul shall not always strive with man.” It’s a strong possibility that fathers offered their daughters up to demons and gave them in marriage. Lame he bloodline perhaps. (Speculation)
Right here with you Gavin! Keep up the amazing work. The Holy Spirit is working through you!
I so appreciated your teaching on local flood questions.
Thanks Gavin. You put your arguments forward very well.
Thank you for following up on this more. For the record, I don’t think this perspective makes you a heretic, though that doesn’t mean that the disagreements aren’t worth having.
I’m sorry for how you were mistreated on Twitter, I hope that going forward more discussions like this can focus on the text of Scripture rather than imagining motives for people and calling names. I personally think there are some very important reasons from the text why a local flood won’t work, and I think that nothing bad can come of Christians discussing and examining Scripture as it might if we are distracted with motives and titles.
You have drawn a parallel a few times between this conversation and geocentricism as an example, but it doesn’t quite work. Unlike geocentricism, and the verses you cite that have been used to support it, the flood is connected to sin, punishment, covenant, and promise. Specifically. It’s not just language of a simile being used to describe the unchanging nature of God or His glory, the flood is a singular historical event that was in response to, and affected those areas and creatures which have been affected (in a specific way) by sin.
A curse on the whole earth. God’s punishment for the whole earth. Subsequently God’s covenant with the whole earth, and the promise that is given to the whole earth. I hope at some point you can engage with the final video I made on the topic, because I would like you to evaluate that a local flood means a local curse/punishment/covenant/promise. That the things promised to creation in Genesis 9 are specifically promised to those which were on the ark, and if you take your position of a local flood, you aren’t just talking about an untethered historical event, but rather the locality has to be applied to the reason for the flood and everything given after it. Geocentricism doesn’t have that problem.
Even not for a video, but for your own study, it couldn’t hurt to take some quiet time to pray, and then go verse by verse through Genesis 6 and 9 in particular, and for each verse ask “What are the theological ramifications if this means local? Global?” For me it was a massive benefit and provided a lot of clarity and certainty on this issue that I frankly didn’t have before you challenged it.
God’s blessings to you!
It was a great video. We need to take seriously scripture in its context. Scripture should challenge us and genesis is a mystery. Don't be discouraged. Its videos like your flood video, (specifically those from someone like IP) that helped take my faith seriously in an intellectual way.
Peter said some things Paul wrote you wrrste with so pray for understanding in Jesus name! But Peter said you would have to be WILLINGLY IGNORANT about world overflowing with water.
ua-cam.com/video/RBPtFdD8-VU/v-deo.htmlsi=FJWIeyfaU3kLyWFz
You're more gracious than I am. There are a lot of modern day Pharisees out there. More people need to learn (be willing?) to think critically. I appreciate your channel!
Believing what God said and loving the truth enough to defend it doesn't make someone a "Pharisee". Take your own advice and think critically.
I love you dude! You have done the work! You have been biblical and scholarly! Thank you!
Man I freaking lpve your takes. I've not watched all of your videos but each of them that I watched clears a doubt in my mind. Please do a take on slavery in the old testament, I'm getting bugged by that
Gavin, if you read this, please make clear whether you believe all people on earth at the time of the flood were living in the Mesopotamian region, or if you believe people were living outside the area you claim the flood occurred in.
I’m just starting the video, but I do find one point troubling. Dr. Ortlund has some quotes where scholars are saying “whole earth” can be unspecific (and I agree); but some of the scholars seem to be disregarding inerrancy.
Here’s how I’m thinking about it: If the author of Genesis was trying to communicate that the flood was absolutely universal, but was wrong because he had an incorrect cosmology, that’s an error, no way around it.
I know that’s not what Dr. Ortlund is arguing (he’s just saying the language can be unspecific to absolute extent), but some of the scholars seem to be just accepting error.
I get that there are people far more liberal than this, so by comparison this would be very conservative. But I think that might be too strong a term if they’re functionally rejecting inerrancy.
@@TheBoredTheist
I agree Moses didn’t have an advanced cosmology. My point is authorial intent matters. If he was *_trying_* to communicate that all the land universally was covered when it in fact wasn’t, that’s an error and I see no way around it. If his cosmology just ended up incidentally in the language, that’s different.
As for scholars like Michael Heiser, I would call him conservative but not *_very_* conservative.
@@TheBoredTheist
Thanks for your response. Notice I didn’t say “spherical earth;” I said “land universally,” meaning all the land there is for humans and animals to roam.
@@TheBoredTheist
Here I’m not arguing what “universal” means to the author. I just mean “if universal means x to the author and he was wrong, then that’s an error.” This is what at least one of the scholars seemed to be saying “the author of Genesis was teaching x but was wrong.”
I agree the authors aren’t infallible. But inerrancy is the doctrine that their writings are without error. That would hinge on authorial intent (or at least I don’t see how that could be avoided).
@@TheBoredTheist
You’re confusing categories. When Scripture quotes Satan it’s correct because that’s what Satan said. It’s doesn’t mean Satan is correct, but the author appropriately quoted him.
On the other hand, if Moses writing Scripture and teaching gets something wrong, that would be an error. The statement says “infallible … in all matters upon which it touches,” and “without error or fault in all its teachings.”
If Moses, writing Scripture, *_teaches_* that the flood covered all land that man and animals can roam, and he was wrong, that’s an error in Scriptural teaching.
Of course it’s reasonable to debate the Moses simply was using the language of the time and wasn’t teaching on the flood from a cosmological perspective. But if he was and he was wrong, that’s an error that would void inerrancy.
@@TheBoredTheist
The question is authorial intent. We can’t arbitrarily say, “The author meant x and was wrong, but God wasn’t teaching that.” I’m okay with the idea Moses wasn’t teaching cosmology in the flood narrative. But at least one of the scholars Dr. Ortlund cites suggests the authorial intent was to teach all land was flooded, but we can now know that the author was wrong because of his limited knowledge. That is what I’m suggesting violates inerrancy.
It is certainly an interesting topic, and I appreciate the civility and knowledge in your discussion, Gavin.
How can one progress their thought if they are unwilling to entertain discussion?
The reluctance to have the discussion in the first place is perhaps the main driver for some intellectuals toward atheism. It is not the orientation of the belief itself-it is the lack of conversation, and also, sometimes, the lack of cordial interaction.
Good video.
the main driver for "intellectuals" "toward atheism" is vainglorious, overweening and unjustified pride.
I so appreciate your heart in addressing this specifically and theological triage in general. I LOVE hearing these other explanations and how they appeared throughout church history. I don't know where I stand on this specific question (but frankly, at the moment, I don't think I care to decide), but you've opened my eyes to a greater realm of scholarly minds offering differing opinions. (Here and in many of your videos)
I wish more people held that kind of attitude -- it's important, it can be super interesting, but it is NOT vital for all of us to freak out over or take an official stance on, and all the time and energy involved in thoroughly studying in order to do so.
I do not agree with you but you are not a heretic.
Thank you, Gavin
Technically Heresy is rejecting a tenet of the Creeds. The Flood isn’t a creedal issue. So it’s heterodoxy at worst if it is indeed wrong.
What was heresy before the creeds were written? 🥱🤔
@@cosmictreason2242being divisive by advocating views at odds with core Apostolic teaching.
Really TRUE biblical heresy is about dividing the church, not disagreeing.
@@cosmictreason2242 --- Paul's letters are full of proto-creedal statements. Heresy before something like the Apostles Creed or the Nicene Creed were defined would be things like: denial of Christ's Resurrection (the Lord has risen indeed and has appeared to Simon); denying the Two Natures of Christ (he was descended from David according to the flesh, declared to be Son of God with Power according to the Spirit); denying that Christ Bodily Suffered and that he was Actually Crucified (and being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross); denying that Jesus is Actually God (confess with your mouth that Jesus is LORD; Christ though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, assuming human likeness); denying the Sacrificial nature of the Eucharist (as often as we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim the Lord's death until he comes); denial of Unity of the Church, denial of Baptism as Salvific, denial of God's Unity, denial of Unity in Faith and Praxis (There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.)
Paul's letters predate the formal compilation of the four gospels by a number of years. Even without access to the gospels, we can see clearly where many modern denominations fall: JWs are Arians, denying Jesus's divinity; Oneness Pentacostals are Saballian / Modalist, denying the Trinity; Muslims are Docestists, denying the the true humanity of Jesus, denying his crucifixion and death and therefore his resurrection. They also deny the Trinity and much more.
And we can see where the Church has always been: in full accord with the Apostles, holding the faith they transmitted from Christ, denying and fighting against heretical ideas.
@@ravissary79 the ones disagreeing with the Bible are the ones dividing the church
@@cosmictreason2242 typically, but it's often not so cut and dry as that.
Between different traditional denominations there are serious differences. They might agree on basic "go to heaven" basics, but half the reason those different denominations split from others at some point was someone had a disagreement, while fully trying to follow scripture, and those they tried to explain it to kicked them out.
But meanwhile there are others who actively disagree but they DON'T get kicked out, and other still who TRIED to divide the body and HAD TO BE kicked out to save the church.
I really appreciate this and your former video. Before I became a christian I didn't really think about the flood or young earth creationism. My dad who was a nominal believer was a theistic evolutionist. I did my bachelors degree in psychology then a few years later I became a christian and started serious study eventually doing a masters in biblical theology. Most in my little corner of the church the CC/CoC are young earthers ie Henry Morris / Ken Ham while I have moved in the local flood interpretation. I'm heavy on context within the historical period.
Gavin, I am a new viewer and I don't post comments very often. I watched both videos and found nothing offensive in either one and I do consider myself to be conservative. I feel that your presentations are well thought out and well reasoned. In regards to the Genesis flood, unless you accept a small local flood, either a regional or global flood both require supernatural involvement. If you support a regional flood, I find myself trying to visualize what that would look like. The earth is roughtly 197 sq mi of surface area and the middle east is sill roughly 2.5 million sq mi depending on what you want to call middle east. Depending an where in Isreal you ar at the elevations are 2,000 to 4,000 ft. This of course assumes no geologic upheaval as some suggest as part af a global flood. So if it rains for 40 days and nights and the waters reach about 22.5 ft higher then something, presumably the local mountains using your hypothesis, that would mean the flood waters would have been over 4,000 feet above sea level. The water remain at this level for 150 days before it started to recede. This would seem to require 1 of three alternatives, 1. that area was much lower back than and arguably would need to be below sea level, 2. God put up a barrior around the known world so that the waters could not flow out to flood the rest of the planet or 3. there was a global flood to at least 4,000 ft anyways. Since over 70 percent of the plante is at sea level and a small percentage of the remaintder is abouve 4,000 ft(not documented, conjecture on my part). I don't see a fourth option. The second option would allow God to use the waters from the rest of the planet then to flood the region which still required something to hold the water in for 150 days before allowing them to flood back out. I don't know which one is right, they all require divine intervention so it comes down to picking your poison. Science will never accept any of this as they refuse to accept the possibility of the supernatural. I am legally blind so please extend grace for any typose! I find your talks to be intellectually honest. At times a bit beyond me maybe but still thought provoking. Thank yo.
IIUC Gavin's view leans towards the idea of "the numbers are symbolic", so it might not literally be 150, instead the "150 days" might symbolize something and instead it was just like a week or whatever. Though, myself, I don't see how that avoids the need for divine intervention, it just makes it needed for a shorter period.
IMO the local flood raises at least as many problems as it solves, the main advantage is that it's more in line with the current mainstream views of geologic history while still taking Scripture somewhat seriously.
Thank you very much. I can’t begin to tell you how many Evangelical churches my husband and have left due to the eccentric belief systems that evolved. We are very much Bible believing Christians and we believe in the authority of Scripture. However, we do believe in scientific discovery. What would Moses have thought of the iPhone?
Having been raised in ancient Egypt he would have recognized dark sorcery when he saw it 😅
Great video. Helpful, charitable, and clear.
My main concern about the topic is the presence of some very dogmatic interpretations of events in Genesis 1-11 which overlap scientific concerns (i.e. young Earth/old Earth creation; global/universal flood). Anyone who knows the empirical science behind these things is being told in essence, ignore what you know and believe what we say. How many people walk away from the claims about Christ because someone who thought he was defending the Bible actually turned people away from it?
Thanks, Gavin for a great exposition of this topic.
science makes it up as it goes along. science is the knowledge of satan, the father of lies. God holds it all together, not "gravity".
I may disagree with you on this and YEC. But I disagree with the dogmatism AIG has encouraged on this even more.
so you are saying that those who believe the truth and expose evil are "dogmatic"? Is God dogmatic?
While I love and aspire to attribute the charitable motives that you do Dr. Ortland, I think that when you are considering what might be behind some of the Twitter attacks, there are at least two common motives or character flaws that you don't seem to consider.
1. Laziness.
Some people are just lazy, and they just want to drop a bomb on Twitter (X) and keep watching their cat videos. They will not read a book, they will not watch your whole video. They don't have any interest in learning or growing, they simply want to reassure themselves that somehow their doom scrolling involved something noble (ie standing for the truth), and move on to the next distraction.
2. Trolling.
Some people are either building or seeking to build a platform through saying the most belligerent, snappy appraisal of another's work possible. If they can get their first, be the most extreme and loudest, they can perhaps attract followers. Building a platform based on careful, charitable, and nuanced commentary and critique is just too slow and painful for most out there.
All that to say, I hope they do not get to you too much. You are doing great work, and I am learning a ton from you. Thank you for doing real reading and research and setting an example for us all.
Gavin, thank you. Thank you so much for putting effort into this subject. I was exactly like what you described, I grew up in an evangelical home and NEVER knew there was any other view that is a legitimate Christian view. I now make it a priority to teach the bible to my children in a less restrictive manner. There are non negotiables, and then there are things we can discuss and wonder about without loosing our faith. Thank you again!
Praise God for such a perspective.
I watched it and didn't have any issues with it
Made it to the end. Thankful for your videos and learn so much from them, I had no idea the young earth creationism takeover was so recent. Thanks for all you do!
After years of reading the early Christians, today I am a:
- pacifist
- credobaptist
- someone who believes in the importance of obedience for salvation
- Christus victor
- a person open to other interpretations of genesis, I myself believe that the flood was local
thank you for your wisdom in talking about this topic, it's been a blessing
Then you should read the Genesis flood (1961). It's astonishing how relevant it still is
Self defence extends to a national level.
To protect ones children can take force and can take force on a national level.
There is a reason that Israel destroyed the nations that committed mass child sacrifice, do you want to be conquered and ruled over by a God hating child sacrificing nation?
Thanks for all your work here Gavin. Would you consider doing a video outlining your view on the historical Adam?
yes! maybe in a month or two
@@TruthUnites Great! Looking forward to it. Bless you and yours
I also tend to think of it as a local flood. However, for Noah to bring pairs of all animals in the region, there still had to be an extreme miracle and I don't fully get the point of bringing the pairs of animals if there were plenty of animals surviving the flood in other regions. Another extreme miracle would be having all these pairs breed succesfully and I don't really see the point to do so, if the flood wasn't global. I don't fully know what to make of the story. As a new believer I took it all literal, now not so much. Sorry for sounding like a sceptic! Just being honest.
Hey Gavin! Thanks so much for this video. I just read Heiser’s approach to the flood in his Unseen Realm. Do you have any advice for young believers (or young church leaders) as they navigate this issue with older believers who take strong global flood positions on this issue? I currently work as a youth and college pastor (and hope to serve my church until i die or am called elsewhere). Any advice for how to encourage our other pastors (and elders) to be more open to local flood views? I have so much respect for these men and do not want to undermine their authority. Yet, I want to be faithful to the word and remove all stumbling blocks that would trip up our students. Thinking about compiling my thoughts and writing a paper… But I don’t want to present it to our leaders until I have met with our head pastor on this issue to establish a dynamic of peace and partnership.
I see this kind of response as the result of an overactive immune system. It's not good, but I understand the strong response against what they see as possible encroachments of liberalism, which has destroyed most of our greatest Christian institutions in the west. I hope they repent and apologize in the future though.
It was also painfully obvious that almost all of the respondents hadn't watched the video.
It is provable that this comes from liberalism historically
@@cosmictreason2242 No it isn't
The distinction of Universal in respects to humanity but local in respects to the earth is something that I have not heard. That really does answer a lot of my concerns. Not to say my view has changed but I will look into it more.
only evil continually, all of mankind, except Noah and his family, were wiped out. This is the reason the Tower of Babel II is being erected now for satan to sit in, again.