According to 2 Timothy 3:16-17, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." In a similar vein, when tempted by Satan, Jesus replied "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’" (Matthew 4:4).
The application of this is simple enough: If a thing is in scripture, it is important for our spiritual lives. It's not all equally important, but it is, nevertheless, quite important. Even the boring bits, which we tend to skip over in our readings, are as important to us as our various body parts. You may live, and even see, with only one eye, yet God gave you two. You may live, and even hear, with only one ear, yet God gave you two. Your limbs, your teeth, even your hair, all vary in importance, but are all, nevertheless, important. In much the same way, you may well have eternal life without a perfect knowledge of, or faith in, scripture. Nevertheless, if God saw fit to inspire a scripture, it is incumbent on us, as faithful Christians, to know and believe it.
What that means is that a lot of the less important things are often connected to other, more important things. Moreover, what you believe about some things will inevitably affect what you believe about other things, if indeed you believe the other things at all.
Origins is an example of a less important thing that inevitably affects what you believe about other more important things. Indeed, the doctrine of Creation is foundations for a wide range of other important doctrines. Thus, it's important to get origins right. Getting it wrong is not only a sinful error in and of itself, but also leads to a wide range of other errors.
When we look throughout scripture, we see the origins account of Genesis being foundational to other doctrines such as the Sabbath, marriage, God's future judgement, and even the Gospel itself.
The Sabbath is the easiest of these to point out. As early as Exodus 20:11, we are told "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." And Sunday school student can tell you this, for it is the fourth of the 10 commandments, which even an atheist may be familiar with. As God created everything in 6 days, so also must the Jews, under the law, work for 6 days. And as God rested on the Sabbath, so also must the Jews rest on the Sabbath. We even see later in scripture that this is why God took as long as He did to create, when it was quite within His power to just blink creation into existence in no time at all.
The Sabbath also has implications on the Gospel. In Hebrews 10:1-4, we read "Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it. For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said: “So I swore in My wrath, ‘They shall not enter My rest,’ ” although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works”; and again in this place: “They shall not enter My rest.” Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience, again He designates a certain day, saying in David, “Today,” after such a long time, as it has been said: “Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts.” For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day. There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His."
In effect, this means Jesus is our Sabbath rest. We do not work for salvation, because God has done the work. We now live by faith, resting in Him. The literal truth of Creation, therefore, first translated into the literal truth of the Sabbath day, which, when Christ came, finally translated into the cessation of salvific work.
Notice, this is all Biblical. It's not based on some external belief, being then imposed upon the text. It flows naturally from the text, it takes no effort to fit into the text, it is what the text explicitly says. Beginning in Genesis 1, we do see a rather vivid description of the origins of the heavens, the Earth, and all that is in them, even with some detail about what happened on each individual day. Which, by the way, have evenings and mornings, further indicating that these are real days. In Exodus 20:11, this really is cited as the foundation for a command that is also quite clearly intended to be understood as literal days. And the Jews can be grateful for this, as if each day is a million years, or even only a thousand, no Jew has ever seen a Sabbath day.
This, of course, really does culminate in the concept that Jesus is our Sabbath rest, using a demonstrably literal truth as grounds for a semi-literal truth. This, it does in similar ways to other metaphors of Christ. Jesus is called the "bread of life" because literal bread, when consumed, does sustain life, but when ignored, leads to starvation, and eventually death. He isn't called the unicorn of life because unicorns are myths. You don't use allegory as foundation for literal truths for the same reason you don't jump from planes with imaginary parachutes.
But what is the implication of creation compromise? Well, first of all, it impugns the authority of scripture, simply because scripture does present a literal 6 day creation. If scripture says one thing, but you believe another, you can do that again and again. Scripture says God created the heavens, the earth, and all that is in them, in 6 days, but you don't believe that. Well then, why believe Jesus is the Son of God, born of a virgin, knowing no sin, dying on a cross, and being raised on the third day? "Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”" (John 5:47).
But of course, most compromisers will not flat out say "I don't believe the Bible", or worse, "I think I have more authority than the Bible". No, their most common argument is the interpretation argument. That is, they attack the clarity of scripture. But there are two problems, starting with the fact it fails to solve the original problem. If the clarity of scripture can be questioned, then it can as well be questioned when it says Jesus is the Son of God, born of a virgin, knowing no sin, dying on a cross, and being raised on the third day. If we may ask "what does scripture mean when it clearly says God created in 6 days?", we can ask "what does scripture mean when it clearly says Christ is risen?" That's not a safe place to stand.
But furthermore, the clarity of scripture is... well, clear. This is especially the case in Psalm 119, which is the longest chapter in the entire Bible, and is coincidentally dedicated to the importance, and effect, of studying scripture. Verse 130 is of particular note, as it says that the mere entrance of God's words "gives understanding to the simple". Now, how is a "simple" person going to understand creation? If they read a mere 8 pages into the Bible, they are going to see the doctrine of Creation almost exactly as "young" Earth Creationists do. And it won't take too much more study for them to see the rest of our view, either. Indeed, even hardcore Theistic Evolutionists do see our view presented in scripture. This is why they don't question "is that what scripture says?", but "do we have to interpret that literally?" This way of arguing is a tacit admission: That is what scripture says!
But the Sabbath is neither the only doctrine based on Genesis, nor even is it the first. As early as Genesis 2:24, we read "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." In the New Testament, Jesus reiterates this very point: "The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”" (Matthew 19:3-6, cf. Mark 10:2-9).
Thus, we see that a historical Adam and Eve not only have strong implications on the doctrine of Marriage, but that Jesus Christ, the Creator Himself (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16) explicitly used them in this very manner! He even did so by quoting Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, inseparably linking the two accounts, once and for all eliminating the alleged distinction between Genesis 1 and 2, which He clearly does not regard as separate, contradictory, or allegorical accounts.
But what if we do regard them as separate, contradictory, or allegorical accounts? Well, once again, we end up denying either the authority or clarity of scripture. But moreover, we do so against the explicit record of Christ's own words. Jesus, being God, has first hand knowledge as the Creator, all authority in Heaven and on Earth (Matthew 28:18; John 17:2), and of course was quite well versed in the Jewish culture, with direct access to the written word. Thus, if you reject the historicity of the Creation account, you not only impugn the authority and/or clarity of scripture, but of Jesus Christ Himself!
And indeed, this is what some compromisers do! In the 1800s, a heresy arose known as Kenoticism, or the Kenotic Heresy. The Kenotic Heresy, based on a misuse of Philippians 2:6-7, teaches that although Jesus was God, He was not fully God, but rather, left His divine attributes, up to and including His omniscience, in Heaven.
This simply cannot be a valid interpretation of Philippians 2:6-7! In context, the passage is giving us an example in Christ, pointing out that although He is God, being equal with God in every way, He humbled Himself, never once using His divinity for His own advantage. He used it only to serve. Yet, in Colossians 2:9-10, we see that He did not leave His divinity behind; the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Him. He didn't cease to be fully God at any given moment in His life. He just didn't use His divinity to be in any way advantageous to Him in His humanity.
So already, we see that a compromised view of Genesis may actually lead to a severely emaciated view of Jesus' divinity! You cannot get any closer to apostasy than to effectively confess "Jesus is Lord... barely". Even if you think He is Lord now, but temporarily ceased while on Earth, are you really able to call yourself Christian if you could go back in time, meet Jesus face to face, hear Him speak, and think "oh you poor, primitive soul... When you return to the Father, you'll remember how silly what you just said was. You'll know what I know, that the Creation account in Genesis is just a bronze age campfire story. God didn't correct them, and isn't correcting you, because science is just too complicated for you dumb goat herders"?
But let's overlook this frankly atrocious heresy made by some compromisers and return to the admittedly less important issue of marriage. Note, again, Jesus' words: "Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”" If you make any compromises on Adam and Eve, you can immediately make the same compromises with marriage. This is particularly problematic in our overly sexualised culture. See, if you do not believe God joined Adam and Eve together, why should you have any problem separating any other marriage today? Why shouldn't we have no fault divorce? Why should polygamy be a problem? Why wait until marriage to have sex? Why must marriage be an exclusively "straight" affair? The irony is, polygamy is the one compromise the Church doesn't seem to have yet made in the Evolutionised West, likely because the culture is still somewhat opposed to it, understandably (and I would say correctly) seeing it as oppressive towards women. Though, as an ironic side note, it is quite beneficial for Evolution, since a virile man with many wives will produce more offspring than monogamous and faithful men.
This isn't even a hypothetical! "Progressive Christianity" is rife throughout our culture, because the same people who do not accept the foundation for marriage as seen in Genesis and presented to us by Jesus in the New Testament, likewise, do not accept marriage itself as God's standard. Sexual immorality runs rampant, even throughout the Church, simply because of a low view of scripture's doctrine on origins.
And so we move on to the flood and its implication on future judgement. We can simply skip over the implications of rejecting the authority and clarity of scripture and Christ. It follows all the same principles; the Old and New Testaments are clear on the flood. It is a literal, historical flood that covered the whole Earth, sparing only those on board the very real ark, after which God promised such a judgement would never happen again. Thus, if you take any other position on the flood, you naturally impugn the authority and/or clarity of scripture, and Christ, who did take the flood as a real historical event (Matthew 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-27).
But once again, there are other implications of alternative interpretations. First of all, if you take the interpretation that the flood is historical, but is only local, you actually turn God into a failure. In Genesis 9:11-17, we read "Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” And God said: “This is the sign of the covenant which I make between Me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud; and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. The rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will look on it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.”"
Now tell me, does God keep His promises? You better hope so, or what hope have you for any kind of a future, on Earth or in Heaven? If God does not keep His promises, the promise of eternal life, even sealed by the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 1:22; 5:5), are not worth relying on. We may as soon trust in Allah, the self-proclaimed "best of deceivers", as in God, who promises, as an everlasting covenant between God and all flesh on the Earth, that He will never repeat such a flood, only to repeat the same flood many times, all over the Earth! Scripture says we serve a God who cannot lie, and that this is why we can trust the promise of eternal life (Titus 1:2), yet if this same God lied to Noah, breaking His promise to never again flood the Earth as He had done, how can we trust Him not to also lie about us having eternal life? The character of God, therefore, is once again impugned by Creation compromise!
As, in fact, is our response to the aforementioned promise. In the early Church, baptism was looked upon so highly, it was just taken for granted. When you got saved, you got baptised, pretty much as soon as water became available to do so. This is, of course, not without Biblical merit and precedent. Baptism is so important, it is often mentioned alongside salvation. In Mark 16:16, for example, we read "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."
Baptism, then, is so very important in scripture that it almost seems essential to salvation. Some denominations even teach that it is. It's just taken for granted that if you believe, to the saving of your soul, the next step is baptism. Jesus Himself, in order to "fulfil all righteousness", was baptised (Matthew 3:13-15), it's that important.
But baptism corresponds to the flood (1 Peter 3:21). When you alter your understanding of the type, you alter your understanding of the antitype. Peter explains "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him."
Now, if baptism is the antitype of the flood, what does that make the flood? The type. So what happens when you misunderstand the flood? You misinterpret baptism. Sadly, typology in general seems to be severely neglected by the modern Church, save of course by heretical denominations who often make up types and antitypes in order to prove their false doctrines. Thankfully for us, typology is more of an icing on the cake than the cake itself. But who doesn't love icing? If you're a Christian, why wouldn't you enjoy a deeper understanding of theology? Typology is a wonderful thing! But it is poisoned when, in our commitment to false doctrines, we mess with the types.
But Peter doesn't just stop at typology. He regarded the flood far higher. In 2 Peter 3:1-10, we read "Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up."
First, note the irony of the fact 2 Peter 3:8 is one of the shockingly few Biblical references compromisers use to defend their view. A day is like a thousand years to God, they say, so maybe, just maybe, God didn't create in 6 literal days? But this is the very thing that not 3 verses earlier, Peter says the willfully ignorant will say! "For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."
So how important are creation and the flood? Rather important. It is not the faithful, but scoffers who reject it! The people who mock the return of Christ, scoffing that things are going on as they have since the beginning of time, are those who deliberately forget that God, by His word, created the Earth out of standing water, and used those same waters to destroy the Earth.
This actually corresponds with Christ's prediction about the end times, as alluded to earlier. "But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be." (Matthew 24:37-39, cf. Luke 17:26-29). So in Noah's day, Jesus tells us, people ignored the coming flood, and that's how it will be when He comes back in judgement.
And that is rather the point; the judgement, i.e. the flood, is just as important as the ark itself. Without the coming judgement, Noah was just some old crazy dude babbling about a doomsday that would never actually come to pass. But a real global flood is a pretty good reason for an ark. Similarly, the next global judgement is a good reason to get saved by Christ.
But what if you believe the flood was allegorical? Well then, you're obviously going to see Christ's return as allegorical. You'll start downplaying, neglecting, even flat out denying His return. It means... something, but you're not quite sure what it is. To this day, I have never heard compromisers explain, especially not with such confidence of detail as Creationists, what their interpretation would mean, or why God would have included them. In a similar vein, if the flood is only a local thing, maybe Christ's return will likewise be local. He'll execute His wrath upon Israel, but not so much the rest of the world.
You see, then, just how dangerous this kind of compromise is. But it actually goes even further than that. See, just as we cannot afford to cast aside Christ's authority, it is also impossible to dismiss the authority of His Apostles. "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them. We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error." (1 John 4:1-6, emphasis mine).
Peter is an Apostle. He who knows God hears Peter. He who is not of God does not hear Peter. That seems like a clear and fair test. And it's from the inspired word of God, without which no one even has any business calling themselves Christian, as where are they even getting their opinions on God if not from Him? If you do not listen to the Apostles when they speak from the authority of God, you are not Christian. And yet, these Apostles, as clearly as Christ Himself, believe a literal, historical, global flood, and warn of the implications of denying it.
Furthermore, note how John says those who are not of God "speak as of the world, and the world hears them". It is the world, not the Lord, not the Apostles, not the scriptures, not the Church, the world, who invented, hold to, and defend Evolution and similar Old Earth narratives. And those within the Church who defend it do so in the same manner as worldly people! Some of them even claim that proclaiming Creationism puts unbelievers off Christianity, whereas compromise, allegedly, draws them in. Deceit! Compromisers advocate deceit in order to make the faith look less foolish in the eyes of the world. Yet scripture says the faith is foolishness to those who are perishing (1 Corinthians 1:18)!
But it gets infinitely worse for the compromisers. The Sabbath, Marriage, the Authority of God, the Clarity of Scripture, the Deity of Christ, the character of God, the authority and clarity of the Apostles, the coming judgement, these are all very important things that will inevitably be affected by how you view the doctrine of Creation. But what about the Gospel itself?
Scripture calls Jesus the "last Adam" as clearly, and even in the same verse, as it calls Adam the first man (1 Corinthians 15:45-47). If there is no first Adam, from whom we inherit the curse of death (Romans 5:12), then first of all, we run into the problem of questioning the authority and clarity of scripture. But even if we acknowledge the problem without acknowledging the source, we lose the solution as well!
Frank Zindler, ironically an atheist, said it best: "The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a savior. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity."
Of course, Zindler is wrong in many ways, starting with the fact it is, in fact, Christianity that is the death knell of Evolution. The historical fact that Jesus rose, solidifying His claims to be the Creator Himself, and thus worthy of being listened to on all things, up to and including origins, renders even the strongest of arguments for Evolution about as useful as a half-evolved wing. That argument won't fly, and so naturally, it is too unfit to survive, and must naturally be selected against by any rational mind.
Nevertheless, without a historical Adam and Eve, the historical Jesus is, at best, a lunatic. A very gifted lunatic, being so skilled as to perform the most convincing magic tricks the world has ever seen, but a lunatic, nonetheless. Alternatively, perhaps His skills in trickery can be explained by the fact He is a trickster? He knew He was lying about being God, but with deceptive powers that would put David Blane to shame, He didn't have to care. Maybe He was even an expert escapologist, which is why He was able to so brilliantly fake His own death that He later appeared alive!
But no Christian should ever be able to even entertain such thoughts. But as C.S. Lewis so eloquently put it, Jesus is either a liar, a lunatic, or... Lord. His miracles weren't tricks. His fulfillment of prophecy wasn't an astonishing coincidence. His resurrection wasn't a mass hallucination. No, He really is the Lord who created the heavens, the Earth, the seas, and all that is in them, in six days! And my brethren, if He can do all these things, He is far more worth listening to than the actual liars and lunatics who continuously peddle new and revised "science" that conveniently changes Evolutionary narratives on a nigh weekly basis!
But what does Paul say? "that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ—" (Ephesians 4:14-15). Are we, as children of God, called to be so gullible that whenever the world approaches us with vain and idle babblings it falsely calls "science" (1 Timothy 6:20), we just put right up with it? We treat the Bible like some dude's notebook, ready to be erased and re-written every time unbelievers tell us we got it wrong? See how vital it is to correctly understand the doctrine of Creation! When we don't, we either become unbelievers, or come so close to it that we may as well be.
And that really is the point. The devil wants us to become unbelievers. And just as our federal head listened to him in the garden, we are either deceived, as Eve was, or willingly disobedient, as Adam was. This, perhaps, is why Satan so hates the book of Genesis in the first place, as his devices are so fully displayed, only a fool could fall for them again. But foolish we are. So foolish, in fact, that we allegorise the very book that shows us how he tricked us in the first place! He starts by casting doubt on God's word, then twists it, then flat out lies, and finally denies God's authority, and His goodness.
This is the same strategy he employs today. And it works. Compromisers compromise on more than just the doctrine of Creation. That compromise leads to the chaos described in this article. But it may not even stop there. Once you start questioning the authority of God's word, especially with regard to its accuracy, why keep it at all? If the first Adam is a myth, if there was no first judgement, then the last Adam is a myth, and there will be no final judgement. Why, then, are we a Christian? The worst effect of creation compromise, without shadow of a doubt, is the damnation that comes with apostasy.
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us." (1 John 2:19). Make no mistake, not everyone who claims to be a Christian actually is. The cares of this world, the terror of tribulation, pride or other sin, are all motivation for compromise, but also for apostasy. Creation compromise, to be perfectly clear, is not in and of itself fatal. There will be many in Heaven who, though they denied Genesis, confessed Jesus as Lord, and believed in their hearts God raised Him from the dead. Therefore, they will be saved, though likely as through fire (1 Corinthians 3:15). Nevertheless, if we know the faithful by their fruits, creation compromisers should be marked as heretics, and that heresy is a symptom of internal apostasy that will, in time, manifest.
My one exhortation to creation compromisers is this: Repent. You are confessing a lie; clinging to a false doctrine, and that false doctrine is very poisonous! It will affect your faith very negatively, if not completely destroy it, and in the process, you will spread that destruction even further. Therefore, repent, lest your heart become hard, and your walk with God become fruitless. Repent, and show your salvation is true. Repent, and give no more wiggle room to the devil.