Biblical Creation and Evangelism

Source unknown, found on Facebook, click for larger  Two "arguments" have the same problem. First, "Most scientists believe evolution". Second, "Most modern Christians do not accept the first eleven chapters of Genesis as actual history". Those are the ad populum fallacy , where people will accept something as true because many people believe it. In addition, we also have the appeal to authority fallacy ("scientists believe"). While it is valid to cite an authority on a topic, people make mistakes. Especially when appealing to authority and majority instead of using reason. Still, it is puzzling. So many people believe something that is contrary to God's Word. Why is that? Well, why do you think? "Science" is practically worshiped by many people, and is used as an excuse to ignore or even replace God. If scientists say something, well, we had better accept what they say, yes? No. For one thing, scientific conclusions, procedures

Although it is just over an hour, this video is well worth your time. Dr. Jonathan Sarfati shows how proponents of an old Earth are using the same atheistic interpretations of scientific facts. Worse, he shows how compromisers like Hugh Ross and BioLogos are on terrible theological ground. The real question is about biblical authority versus man's opinions. Let him explain. NOTE: Skip ahead to the seven minute mark to where he actually begins talking.

It constantly baffles me why some Christians insist that the Bible does not mean what it says back in Genesis. Some blatant compromisers like Hugh Ross and BioLogos can be seen as dangerous to the gospel. It is disheartening when a respected philosopher like William Lane Craig actually mocks biblical creationists . When people I respect, like Greg Koukl of "Stand to Reason", keep making efforts to say that Genesis does not mean what it says (as he did in his radio show on September 2, 2012, at about the 1 hour 10 minute mark ), it is discouraging. Especially when I know that Koukl has a great deal of worthwhile material! As I have said before, we are sending people a mixed message: The Bible is true, and contains what we need for salvation and a godly life, it means what it says. You don't need to be told what to think, have a "Watchtower" magazine or Book of Mormon. Except for the first eleven chapters of Genesis. Then, we have to go with the current tren

It seems that most people simply believe in "deep time" and use current science philosophy trends to interpret the Bible. As I have said before, I believe that many people have simply not bothered to examine their theology, and see that their opinions are actually doing violence to the rest of Scripture. Others are actively compromising and denying the authority of God's Word. What causes people to accept what "science" says, and to interpret the Bible according to secular belief systems? Here is an article that has some good answers. Evangelicals believe that the Bible is the word of God, but most of them (in the Western world outside the USA, at least) do not believe that God created the universe in six literal days about six thousand years ago. Furthermore, they say that those who do believe it are interpreting the Bible wrongly. Why? Are they right? And why do so many of them say it? Also, why are so many resistant to even considering this matter? Thi

Servants, be obedient to those who according to the flesh are your masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as to Christ; not in the way of service only when eyes are on you, as men pleasers; but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men; knowing that whatever good thing each one does, he will receive the same again from the Lord, whether he is bound or free. — Ephesians 6.5-8 , World English Bible I've got nothing against God, it's his fan club I can't stand. — Unbelievers' slogan This is not an easy article to write. Here I am on vacation, the place to myself, and I'm running all over chasing after shiny things instead of actually writing it. Then I had to walk away to think and pray. Once you read it, you will see why I had difficulties. Although I do not set out to irritate people on this Weblog, I am certain that people on both sides of the chas

One of the reflexive responses of compromisers regarding Genesis is, "You can't take it literally". To me, that says, "I reject anything that indicates a creation week of 24-hour days, a young Earth and a Noachian flood, because I add millions of years and interpret the Bible through "nature", which is the  67th book of the Bible ." That is a very bad idea: A straightforward reading of the book of Genesis does  not  give any "wiggle room" for any of those  compromise doctrines to add huge amounts of time It leads to a series of compromises through the Bible God takes a dim view of people tampering with his word and "exceeding what is written" (for example, Prov. 30.6, Deut. 4.2, Rev. 22.18-19, 1 Cor. 4.6 NASB) But...what does it mean  to take Genesis "literally"? I tend to cringe when people say that, because misotheists will find all sorts of strange things to take out of context and then accuse Christians of believing &q

As I have said many times here, when we engage in apologetics, we need to be well-grounded in the Word and good instruction, as well as walking in the Spirit (Eph. 5.18), using the armor of God (Eph. 6.11-19). We must be proclaiming the gospel with boldness (Eph. 6.19, Acts 13.46, Phil. 1.14). Prayer is essential to our task as well as our daily lives (Eph. 6.18, Jude 1.20, 1 Thess. 5.17). If we attempt to engage in apologetics without having a real Christian walk, we are asking for trouble. Further, people who do not really believe the Bible simply undermine the gospel, and the efforts of apologists who do believe the Bible is God's Word; a "high view" of Scripture is essential. When compromisers say that the Bible needs to be interpreted by adding current man-made science philosophies, that it is only for "spiritual truth", adding views that are either unscriptural or anti-scriptural, saying that the Bible is not reliable — they need to examine themselves and

If we are going to be effective soldiers for Jesus, we have to be firm on the basics: Get into the Word, spend time in prayer, fellowship with other believers and get good teaching. If you are not doing these things on a regular basis, you have no business  getting in Satan's face — you'll be shredded. But if you are doing those, then add your spiritual combat gear (Ephesians 6.10-18) and apologetics training books, videos, lectures, audios or whatever. And remember, the whole thing is not only about being strong in the Lord and growing in faith ourselves, but to be able to present the gospel. You do care that people are dying without Christ and spending eternity in Hell, yes? The first part of the basics, getting into the Word, is vital. Do you believe  the Word of God? Or is the Bible something that you do not consider all that important? If that is the case, I urge you to check yourself and see if you are truly saved . You cannot expect to be an effective witness if you d

Did you know that the one who was most influential in forming the modern scientific method was a Biblical creationist? Yes, it was Sir Francis Bacon. Although he has been called a great man of faith, he actually did damage to our understanding of science. He wanted to leave God out of science and be strictly secular with it. He had an unscriptural belief that God's revelation was expressed in "two books". One of those is the Bible, the other is nature. When "interpreted correctly", they are in harmony. (Frankly, this sounds cultic, smacking of the Mormon claim that the Bible is true "as far as it is translated correctly".) Compromisers like Hugh Ross will give priority to the current understanding and beliefs of modern science trends, interpreting the Bible to fit with those preconceptions. Christians gradually surrendered science to the secularists. Then, they began sacrificing their belief in the authority of Scripture. There are two parts to the fo

And whoever is so bold that he ventures to accuse God of fraud and deception in a single word and does so willfully again and again after he has been warned and instructed once or twice will likewise certainly venture to accuse God of fraud and deception in all His words. — Martin Luther In a previous brilliant article (oops, almost forgot that this is not the "with attitude, in-character" Weblog), I discussed Fundamentalism and anti-intellectualism , and the errors made regarding the defense of the faith. Now I have learned something else that runs parallel. One of the fundamentals of Fundamentalism is the inerrancy of Scripture. (I am not a Fundamentalist, but I hold to this position, as do many other non-Fundamentalist Christians.) Although Christians had been instrumental in the development of sciences through the years, we surrendered to the secularists. The Bible came under assault from Darwinists, uniformitarianism and "Higher Criticism". Instead of adh

It seems that Old Earth Creationists (OECs) who use atheistic methods and interpretations of science and then add huge amounts of time into the early chapters of Genesis are more extreme than I thought. No, I am not saying "extreme" as in "blowing up buildings belonging to Biblical creationists". What I mean is that they have to keep twisting Scriptures and forcing excuses to justify their compromising positions. From Ken Ham's Weblog: After watching what turned into a two-hour debate between Hugh Ross and me on TBN television last week, AiG board chairman, Pastor Don Landis, gave an address to the AiG staff yesterday morning titled “Contending for the Faith” (Jude 3). Jude 3 states “Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” His powerful address focused on challenging the staff t

Ironically, the fundamentally flawed atheistic worldview has helped modern Christianity by forcing questions and issues into our faces that were sidestepped and ignored. (I think some of the questions were also in the minds of believers as well, but we did not bother to ask.) One reason that people have abandoned their faith is when they would ask questions about the very first book of the Bible and receive scolding or pious non-answers. Apologists have been becoming more skilled, more knowledgeable and more plentiful. The same with apologetics ministries. I have been encouraging Christians from the beginning of this Weblog to know what and why we believe (2 Peter 3.18) so that we can share the gospel effectively (1 Peter 3.15, Jude 1.3 NASB) and be on guard against false teachers and compromisers (Matthew 7.15 ESV, 2 John 1.7, 2 Cor. 11.13-15). This includes the so-called "New Atheist" movement. (It has been pointed out that there is not much "new" in it, ju

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Part 1 of this 2-part series is here . Interesting... I was attacked three times in three days by OECs (Old Earth Creationists). I should not be surprised, I suppose. People love their pet doctrines, and get very passionate, even unchristian, in promoting them . The OEC in the previous post was banned for being obstreperous, illogical and judgmental, and had to continue fussing at me in e-mail correspondence. Also, there was another OEC who pulled similar nonsense and was extremely condescending. He met Mr. Banhammer as well. As I discussed in the previous linked post, OECs essentially use current trends in science and science philosophy to tell God what he meant in his Word. Although this kind of compromise (that's right, I said it) does not guarantee that the person disbelieves the Bible or is not really a Christian, their lower view of Scripture causes a domino effect on theology, with further compromise and excuses as a result. Liberal theolo