by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
They Say Compromise Is GoodA few months back, I getting dissatisfied with the church I was attending, and wanted to saddle up and find another church in the Kingston, New York area. Not very promising, since there are polar opposites: emotionally-driven gatherings, and the traditional liberal outfits. Those who actually believe the Bible and can give proper exegesis are difficult to find around here.
One church had some standard fare in their statement of faith (including the inerrancy of Scripture, which is very important), and I reckoned that I could get along with that. But not a peep about creation. I sent them an e-mail inquiring about their position on it. The response was disappointing, saying that creation was an unimportant side issue, and anyway, the Framework Hypothesis was just fine for that pastor.
Not hardly! The Framework Hypothesis is a compromise position where Genesis does not mean what it says   . His church claims to believe the inerrancy of Scripture, and then he holds a position on Genesis that contradicts their claim.
In another instance, a popular apologist admitted that although Exodus 20:11 is quite clear, he still is not convinced that the days of Genesis are literal days, and was telling callers on his show about the Framework Hypothesis and other compromise views. I called him and said that it, and also the Progressive Creation position of people like Hugh Ross, fly in the face of the authority of Scripture, and uses bad science as well as bad theology   . In fact, I offered to send him him my own copy of Refuting Compromise by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati [my review here: 7], and he casually said he'd "take a look at it". Frankly, I think I wasted my time and money, but I still had to try to help correct this Bible-affirming apologist on his theological errors.
Some churches and pastors are embarrassed by creation. I believe they are intimidated by the established view of "science", and one pastor told me that although he is a biblical creationist, he does not want to be "labeled" . What does that lead to, "stealth creation"? Someone is shown the way of salvation, and then told, "Oh, by the way, we believe in a recent six-day creation". Disingenuous at best. Also, where does the "labeling" end? Believing that the Israelites crossed the Red Sea on dry land (Exodus 14:21-22), that God provided manna (Exodus 16:35), Jesus and Peter walked on water (Matt. 14:25-32), Jesus raised the dead (Luke 7:11-17, John 11:38-44), Jesus gave sight to the blind (Mark 8:22-26), Jesus himself was raised from the dead (Luke 24:5-6), Peter healed a lame beggar (Acts 3:1-7), Paul raised the dead (Acts 20:9-12), and more throughout Scripture. Doesn't believing any of these things make someone a "science denier"? Some of us are not afraid of being labeled, because we believe the Word of the living God.
In an episode of Fighting for the Faith, Chris Rosebrough reviewed a sermon by Adam Huschka of Narrate Church  called "Help I Feel! False Prophet?", beginning at the 1 hour, six minutes, 24 second mark [click here to listen online or download: 10]. Looking at their "Our Beliefs" in the "About Narrate" section, at first glace, it seems I could go there because they affirm the basics. Careful... (Oddly enough, I could not find the "Help I Feel!" series on the church's site, but the podcast is still available elsewhere.) In the sermon reviewed at the above link, Adam Huschka thought it would be appropriate to run a secular video by Dan Gilbert called "The Surprising Science of Happiness" .
Gilbert begins by teaching evolution, and then presents his philosophy of happiness. He presupposed evolution as truth, and showed pictures of Homo habilis and modern human skulls to illustrate the increase in brain size. He did not bother to mention that, even in the evolutionary view, Neanderthal Man had a larger brain than modern humans. Further, failed evolutionary mythology persists in affirming the disproved view that cranial capacity is a measure of intelligence . Huschka does not bat an eye about the false teaching of evolution, is willing to bring it into his church in a Sunday sermon, and uses secular views mixed with bad eisegesis of the Bible. A great deal of compromise going on.
Many who accept the various compromise positions above (and there are several others as well), they include an old earth viewpoint that is based on atheistic interpretations of science. Not all adherents of "deep time" are evolutionists, but have views that are compatible with evolution.
What About Theistic Evolution?
- They assume it is true, so we must be understanding the Bible incorrectly (as discussed in the section about Adam Huschka)
- Fear of what other people will think, and being "labeled" (as mentioned above), and also bullying by militant theistic evolutionists
- They have not studied how evolution is actually harmful to the gospel message   , and may even be considered biblically lazy
- Open rebellion to the authority of the Word of God and the plain teachings of the Bible
Your Choice Has Tremendous Importance