For Calvin, then, the Flood was not simply an influx of water. It was a disordering of creation that interrupted the normal working of nature. The world was undone on a much deeper level than is recognized by either of the two predominant views, and the result is a miracle as different from a naturalistic flood as a cardiac resuscitation is from a resurrection.

The geographic extent of the Genesis flood recently became a flashpoint on Christian social media. Given the rancor over the topic, one might expect to find critical distinctions between those who argue for a flood that extended over a local area and those who believe it covered the entire globe. And certainly, the two groups each feel the other damages the concept of biblical inerrancy in some way. Yet the reality is the camps are far more similar than different. Both operate from nearly identical presuppositions, and both allow those presuppositions to drive them to adopt minority interpretations of biblical texts. My goal here is to highlight the commonalities and suggest consideration of a third way.
Side 1: A Global Flood
Advocacy for the global flood position is supported by several parachurch organizations that are, if not solely interested in the issue, highly focused upon it. This is unusual, as most apologetic concerns do not draw such dedicated attention. The organizations engage with the development of different flood models, but nearly all of them are propelled by the key assumption that the flood operated in a naturalistic fashion. To be sure, miracles are accepted at various times during the event, but the overriding belief is that the principles of geology observed today can and should be applied to the flood of yesteryear. All the models therefore assume a type of flood geology, in which the surface of the planet was completely reshaped by predictable forces.
Flood geologists often maintain that they hold to the traditional majority interpretations of Scripture. While this is true in many instances, there is at least one section of text they understand in a completely novel way. Gen 2:10-14 reads:
“A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first is the Pishon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Havilah, where this is gold. And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. The name of the second river is the Gihon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Cush. And the name of the third river is the Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.”
Here Genesis seems to indicate at least some of the Edenic rivers are still flowing, and that the surrounding lands are still in existence. Yet this is clearly incompatible with the notion that the Earth’s surface has been catastrophically changed by the flood. Flood geologists address this challenge by positing that the portions of Genesis describing the antediluvian world were themselves written prior to the flood. After the flood, the names of rivers and lands were reused for the new surface. The pre-flood writings were then translated into Hebrew and integrated into Genesis without revision or editorial comment.
While there is nothing logically impossible about this scenario, it does seem to me to be unnecessarily convoluted. What’s more, it represents a notable deviation in the hermeneutical principles generally employed by flood geologists. Creation science organizations routinely advocate for the interpretation of Scripture to be guided by a plain reading of the text. There is, however, nothing in the plain reading that suggests the Tigris and Euphrates are anything other than the rivers known to Moses’ original audience. Certain scientific pre-commitments cause the text to be read in a way which breaks from both the normal interpretive methodology and the historic understanding. As one article published by Creation Ministries International states:
“The first option is that the Havilah, Cush, Assyria, Tigris, and Euphrates in Genesis 2 are the same as their post-Flood designations. As we noted, this option fails to appreciate the devastation the Flood would have had on the continents, literally reshaping the surface of the planet as miles of sediment were eroded and laid down. Furthermore, as we have shown, it is impossible to match the Bible’s geographical description with the names in Genesis 2. So while biblical creationists such as Luther, Calvin, and many others held this view historically, it is no longer a viable biblical creationist option in light of current geological knowledge.”
Side 2: Local Flood
Advocacy for the local flood position also receives some parachurch support, but it is far less than what is given to the opposing viewpoint. This relative lack of organizational structure may contribute to the greater level of diversity in the details of the local flood models. Considering location alone, one can find suggestions that include the Black Sea, the area around the Persian Gulf, and the Mediterranean during the Messinian Salinity Crisis. Like their global counterparts, the local models all take for granted that the Genesis flood functioned according to known geological principles. Reasons to Believe demonstrates this when answering the question “Could the Genesis Flood Happen the Way it was Written?”:
“From a geoscience perspective this short list of the conditions required to produce Noah’s flood seems reasonable. There was clearly enough water which, when coupled with rapid land level change and suitable topography, could conceivably cause a flood of “biblical proportions.” While these mechanisms may not have been responsible for Noah’s flood, they at least demonstrate that the occurrence of this catastrophic localized flood does not require breaking the laws of science that God himself set in place (Jer. 33:25).”
Holding to a naturalistic view of the flood once again affects the reading of the biblical text. While the continued existence of Edenic lands and rivers pose no issue for the local models, the universal sounding descriptions of the flood require an explanation. These passages are subsequently held to be hyperbolic and limited by the context of the discussion. For example, Gen 7:19 (“And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered”) is explained by an appeal to Deut. 2:25 (“This day I will begin to put the dread and fear of you on the peoples who are under the whole heaven, who shall hear the report of you and shall tremble and be in anguish because of you”). Just as Deuteronomy does not intend to describe all the peoples of the globe, so the argument goes, neither does Genesis intend to describe all the mountains on earth. This represents a rejection of the majority reading found throughout history, much like the exegetical choices of the flood geologists.
Cashing Out
To be clear, I don’t believe minority reports should be rejected solely because they are minority reports. Yet I can’t say I’m convinced that either of our friends’ suggestions take a full accounting of the biblical data. There is a verse that nags at me, and it is one that is almost universally ignored in these conversations. The Lord, speaking in Gen. 8:22 after the Flood, states, “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.” It is a surprising promise. Did the cycle of day and night cease during the flood? Calvin thought so. In his commentary he explains:
“By these words the world is again completely restored. For so great was the confusion and disorder which had overspread the earth, that there was a necessity for some renovation. On which account, Peter speaks of the old world as having perished in the deluge. Moreover, the deluge had been an interruption of the order of nature. For the revolutions of the sun and moon had ceased: there was not distinction of winter and summer.”
For Calvin, then, the Flood was not simply an influx of water. It was a disordering of creation that interrupted the normal working of nature. The world was undone on a much deeper level than is recognized by either of the two predominant views, and the result is a miracle as different from a naturalistic flood as a cardiac resuscitation is from a resurrection. One is reminded of what Vern Poythress wrote in Redeeming Science when discussing the possibly miraculous nature of the flood:
“If the mechanics of the flood are completely unfathomable, no scientific theory can hope to capture them. The flood remains permanently beyond the reach of science. What, then, would scientists find when they examine rocks left behind by the flood? They might find pure chaos, such that no one could make sense of it. But both flood geologists and mainstream geologists think that they find order, and that a great deal can be explained. Evidently, God did not choose to act in a way that just left behind a complete chaos.
Second, one might find that the flood left behind a mature creation, after the manner of the mature creation at the end of the six days of creation. This alternative is less far-fetched than one might think, because the Bible gives clear hints that the flood of Noah represents a pattern of destruction and re-creation. In a manner of speaking, the flood returns the world to the watery, empty situation of Genesis 1:2. The Lord then proceeds to “re-create” an ordered world.”
To adopt a position like this forces us to re-examine our fundamental assumptions of the world. It reminds us that the God of order is Himself not bound by His own creation. The routine operations of the Lord’s governance do not govern Him.
There is a scene in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader when the boy Eustace is speaking to a retired Narnian star in the form of a man. Eustace explains that, “In our world, a star is a huge ball of flaming gas.” The star replies, “Even in your world, my son, that is not what a star is but only what it is made of.” Perhaps all sides of the flood debate might take the sentiment to heart. Perhaps in our world, water is not what the flood was but only what it was made of.
Sean McGinty is a member of Providence Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) in Scottsdale AZ.
Related Posts:

The book was an apologetic exercise in harmonizing the position that creation occurred several thousand years ago with the presence of geologic structures that seemingly suggested a longer timeframe. Although the book is quite long, the central premise is easy to describe. Gosse’s observations led him to believe that the mature forms of all natural objects are dependent upon immature forms for their structures.

In 1857, Philip Gosse, a respected naturalist, released a book entitled “Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot.” The book was an apologetic exercise in harmonizing the position that creation occurred several thousand years ago with the presence of geologic structures that seemingly suggested a longer timeframe. Although the book is quite long, the central premise is easy to describe. Gosse’s observations led him to believe that the mature forms of all natural objects are dependent upon immature forms for their structures. He concluded that an instantaneous creation must come into existence with a type of backstory. That is, an earth only a few minutes old would possess things like multiple geologic layers and fossils and such.
The near-universal response to Gosse’s proposal has been scorn. The late Steven Jay Gould appraised the book as “spectacular nonsense”, “illogical”, and “it smacks of plain old unfairness.” This reaction interests me almost as much as the idea that prompted it. Why is the response so strong?
Gould objects that Gosse’s proposal would mean God has deceived us, or that nature is simply a joke. Neither complaint strikes me as having much weight. In regards to potential deception on God’s part, well, if the Lord tells us how old creation is (which was indeed Gosse’s position) then it’s difficult to see how any deception could be in play. But, even if there was, Gould fails to recognize that Scripture does indeed present several examples of the Lord deceiving those who reject His word (1 Kings 22:11, Ezekiel 14:6-11, 2 Thess. 2:9-12). Gould may dislike the idea that God would make a fool of him, but such is the Lord’s prerogative.
Is nature then a joke? The question points towards Gould’s underlying concern. Near the end of his review of the book, the notion that logic or reason is driving his objection begins to fade:
But what is so desperately wrong with Omphalos? Only this really (and perhaps paradoxically): that we can devise no way to find out whether it is wrong – or, for that matter, right. Omphalos is the classical example of an utterly untestable notion, for the world will look exactly the same in all its intricate detail whether fossils and strata are prochronic or products of an extended history. When we realize that Omphalos must be reject for this methodological absurdity, not for any demonstrated factual inaccuracy, then we will understand science as a way of knowing, and Omphalos will serve its purpose as an intellectual foil or prod. Science is a procedure for testing and rejecting hypotheses, not a compendium for certain knowledge.
So here is the real reason Gould dislikes Gosse. He feels the foundations of his knowledge starting to shake. If Gosse is right then we are revealed to not be in control of our world. Our methods are exposed as hollow. And if we are not firmly at the wheel, then everything must be a joke.
But what a wonderful joke it is. The Lord has used the weak things of the world to shame the wise. All our best attempts pale in the light of His glory and wisdom. Like Job we must say “Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.”
Gould finishes his review with a picture of Gosse as a broken man, rejected by the worldly wise. He spends his evenings in gloom, entertaining discussions of murder-cases with his young son. The great traitor to Science has been brought low. Let me end with a different picture. It is the Judgement, and the Lord has set a table before Gosse in the presence of Gould. Gosse stands to toast the One whose plans are formed in inscrutable beauty. Gould stands as well, and from him comes an admission that reveals which of the men is the true traitor.
Sean McGinty is a member of Providence Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) in Scottsdale AZ.
Related Posts: