Grudem’s Systematic Theology book intentionally distances readers from the majority of Young Earth Creationist believers who hold a 6,000 year age of creation position. Therefore, his analysis of creation should only be treated as a critical critique of YEC and neither an endorsement of YEC nor an historical view of Genesis.  Too many inconsistencies arise for the lay person to immediately pick up.  And his ability to couch it all in academic fanfare makes it seem plausible, taken in isolation from other input.  Here is a sampling of the issues.

1. His citation of the earth being 10,000 to 20,000 years old on pages 384 – 385.  This is likely due to the belief in non-Christian archeological dating of artifacts related to the ages of kingdoms.  Which, by the way, impacts the prophecies of Daniel.
2. His presentation of “gaps” in genealogies on page 388, without addressing the well known answers to this problem.
3. There are numerous places where he gives room for errored scientific conclusions to infect the Bible, notably in his “No Final Conflict” list on page 351.

I am not a theologian or historian, and leave it to the experts below to further unpack Grudem’s errored inconsistencies when it comes to creation.  From a theological perspective, Grudem says he holds to a historical view of Genesis 1-3, but then his defining of that history does not add up.  Evidence from secular science and secular history cause Biblical reinterpretation that simply is not needed and not substantiated in a Biblical worldview.   I have observed how  fuzzy beliefs in Biblical history impact people.  The beliefs fuel evolutionary worldviews and ignores the great works of YEC scientists over the last 50 years.  It’s like Grudem has no idea of the depth and breadth of YEC evidence.  So, Christians that think evolution is true will gravitate to people like Grudem that crack the door open for them. The impact is Scripture interpretation, where we see the church imploding today on a foundation of evolution quicksand.  

Wayne Grudem – Friend of John Lennox suffers the same inconsistencies when it comes to God’s creation.

But like everyone, once we depart from the plain reading of scripture, the house of cards starts to lean.  Look at this answer to the question of gay mirage.

“I don’t think any society today should criminalize homosexual conduct (as some legislators in Uganda are now attempting to do), any more than I think society should criminalize adultery or fornication, because these are private acts between individuals that government should not intrude into. But I also don’t think society should encourage and promote such relationships by calling them “marriage” and giving them all the benefits that go with marriage. And so the issue is not whether homosexual couples can get married, but rather, do we as a society wish to redefine marriage in its entirety so that it is no longer a relationship between one man and one woman? The homosexual agenda is attempting to redefine what marriage is, and I think that would be a terrible mistake for our society.”

He says we shouldn’t make the law part of “private acts” then turns right around and says it’s not whether homosexuals can get married but if we want to let them redefine it!!  What in the Sam Hill does Grudem smoke?  To not see that changing the laws to allow homosexual marriage does redefine marriage is hopelessly inconsistent.  Like Russel Moore, Tim Keller, and NT Wright they all build straw men of Christian orthodoxy on one side and human secularism on the other, then set both on fire as they find themselves as the one right answer in the “neutral” middle. There is no neutrality!!