The Supernaturalism of the Flood -- By: John C. Whitcomb, Jr.

Journal: Grace Journal
Volume: GJ 08:1 (Winter 1967)
Article: The Supernaturalism of the Flood
Author: John C. Whitcomb, Jr.


The Supernaturalism of the Flood

John C. Whitcomb, Jr.

Professor of Old Testament
Grace Theological Seminary

[This paper was given at Western Baptist Seminary, Portland, Oregon, as a part of the Bueerman-Champion Lectureship, September, 1966.]

Even as Christians have frequently been guilty of distorting the Biblical account of Creation by reading into it the concept of mere natural processes acting through vast periods of time, so also the Biblical record of the great Flood has suffered at the hands of uniformist interpreters. Geologists are certainly correct when they insist that a world-wide, mountain-covering Flood could not occur today, on the basis of the present balance of oceans and continents. There simply is no known natural mechanism or force in the crust of the earth sufficiently powerful to elevate oceans and submerge continents suddenly. But when these same geologists assert that the Book of Genesis is wrong when it tells us of this kind of a catastrophe at the dawn of human history, they are revealing their ignorance of the God of creation, miracle, and judgment. In the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God” (Matt 22:29).

Advocates of the local-Flood concept have always found it convenient, of course, to question the validity of the appeal to miracle that must characterize the universal Flood view. Bernard Ramm, for example, is rather emphatic in insisting that “if one wishes to retain a universal flood, it must be understood that a series of stupendous miracles are required. Further, one cannot beg off with pious statements that God can do anything…. There is no question what Omnipotence can do, but the simplicity of the flood record prohibits the endless supplying of miracles to make a universal flood feasible.”1

In considering this objection, our attention is focused, in the first place, on the statement that “the simplicity of the flood record” prohibits the kind of supernaturalism that a universal Flood would call for. Dr. Ramm doesn’t go on to tell us what this “simplicity” consists of, and this is unfortunate, for it is apparent that this serves as his interpretive key for the entire Flood narrative of Genesis. In the light of this, one cannot help but ask what other great supernatural events of Scripture would fall under Dr. Ramm’s “simplicity” hermeneutic. Another leading evangelical scientist, Dr. J. Laurence Kulp, seems to have carried this idea to its logical conclusion when he writes: “Miracles should not be described as acts whereby God breaks His laws but rather as acts whereby He superimposes higher laws to effect His purpose...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()