Skip to main content

The Inconsistent Message of Compromise

Edited about 19 hours after publishing.

Israel was warned by God to stay true and avoid the idols and false teachings of other nations, but they repeatedly rebelled. Eventually, they were decisively conquered. Later, God provided the Redeemer, and Christians were told in no uncertain terms to stay true to God's Word and the teachings of the apostles. Still, compromise happened and many false teachings had to be opposed by the faithful.

Cry of prophet Jeremiah on the Ruins of Jerusalem, Ilya Repin, 1870
Gallop ahead to more recent times. Scientists believed in recent creation until the likes of Hutton, Lyell, and Darwin hijacked science with gradual change and deep time. Christians saddled up with them, compromising on the plain teachings of Scripture.

We have that problem today, and biblical creationists are the minority while compromisers are doing great harm to the truth. One big problem is, I believe, that professing Christians, from the 19th century through today, seem to feel the need to be considered something like "moderate, genuinely rational, pro-science Christian believers". Another problem is the conflation of science with evolution and millions of years. 

Such things are based on atheistic interpretations of data. Using the opinions of God's enemies to tell God what he said and meant is mighty improper. What kind of message is that? You believe the Bible from cover to cover — except the first chapters of Genesis, you need humanist "wisdom" for that. If they study on it, they should see that it causes a chain reaction of compromise (and even calling Jesus, Peter, Jude, Paul, and others liars) all the way to Revelation. Compromise leads to bad theology leads to bad apologetics, old son. If you put death before sin, your belief system becomes an inconsistent shambles.

After I had published this, an angry atheopath who is incapable of accurately representing creationists had a diatribe with this comment: "Non-creationists think Jesus, Peter, Jude, Paul, and others were 'liars', Bob? No. They think they were uninformed about modern science." While this is not the main point of the article linked below, it is worth addressing, although I wonder who appointed him the representative of non-creationists.

First, he needs to learn to read. The chain of compromise has people calling those listed as liars, I did not say that non-creationists call them liars. Second, it's a non sequitur because this is about the spiritual implications. More importantly, theistic evolutionists have stated that Jesus and the others did not know modern science. When they do this, they are admitting that they reject the divine inspiration (θεόπνευστος) of Scripture, and are denying Jesus, who is the Creator, is God. The effects of the chain of compromise are serious indeed.

Atheists, evolutionists, and professing Christians who ride for the long age brand know the importance of adherence to biblical truth. Many hate biblical creationists, and seek to destroy us through defamation, misrepresentation, and so on. Some unbelievers are savvy enough to trip up those who claim to believe the Bible but force-fit long ages into it. 
Sooner or later, anyone involved in the subject of Christian apologetics will be asked about the existence of death and suffering. The question can take many forms: Why is there so much suffering in the world? Why does God allow it? What about suffering caused by natural evil? Historically, the Christian response to this question has been to explain that the original creation, which was declared by God to be “very good” (Genesis 1:31), did not contain such aberrations as death and suffering. Apologists then typically point to the historical event of the Fall as that which allowed sin and death to enter and corrupt the created order (Romans 8:20–22). Such a response is a biblical one, yet many are seemingly oblivious that this answer can only be used consistently within a ‘young-Earth’ framework. While correctly pointing to the Fall as an explanation for death and suffering, many apologists who accept the evolutionary long-age paradigm of earth history are unaware of the massive inconsistency. Old-Earth belief directly undercuts the biblical defence against objections posed by death and suffering. The secular paradigm is built upon ‘dating’ methods and assumptions which place death, suffering, disease, cancer and carnivorous activity long before the Fall of man. Thus, pointing to the Fall as the terminus a quo for death and suffering is logically inconsistent, and many thoughtful sceptics have picked up on this.
To read the rest, click on "Christian apologists trip over the age of the earth … again". Also, I strongly recommend "Genesis and the Gospel". 


Brad Hopkins said…
Wow, Paul Coban sure likes to beat his old earth horse, even though it's already dead.

Popular posts from this blog

Andy Stanley, Frank Turek, and Bad Theology

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Andy Stanley has been disappointing some people, and causing quite a few to be alarmed by his opposition to the authority of Scripture. (Note: Do not be confused.  Charles  Stanley is his father, senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, and heard on In Touch Ministries . I've found most of his teachings to be doctrinally sound, and he upholds the inerrancy and authority of the Bible.) Unfortunately, megachurch director Andy Stanley has been saying things that are destructive to the truth, including recommending the false teaching of theistic evolution. Gray wolf image credit: US National Park Service While shooting from the hip can be a good thing, someone claiming the title of pastor should reign himself in . Stanley was disrespectful of small churches, then apologized later . In another instance, " What  did he just say?", Stanley may have used a very bad word in a sermon. When the segment was legally posted on YouTube

A Cowboy Bible?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Before I get going on this, I'd better clarify something, even though many of my regular readers (and podcast interview listeners) know: my "cowboy" moniker is not earned. It's a nickname I picked up a few years ago, and it shows my cowboy attitude. I don't know nothin' 'bout no hayburners; tell me to saddle up a horse and ride, I'd probably get kicked, fall off, and land in poo. So, I need a guide. Yes, I lived in the West — the west side of Michigan. Anyway, being a cowboy at heart has helped me get things done. My father had a cowboy attitude as well, which is something I learned from testimonials at his funeral. Anyway, adding some Western-style lingo in posts and articles adds color and personality, I reckon, even though I usually have a conversational style for the most part. Assembled from components at Clker Clip Art A while back, I was looking for cowboy Bibles and came across the " Simplified Cowboy Versio

Poor Excuses for Rejecting Creation

So often with various kinds of conversion experiences where people get all worked up about something — then the excitement cools. Books are untouched on the shelves, no interest in lectures (videos or otherwise), but they have a smattering of knowledge. Image source before modification: Pixabay /  Spencer Wing This is especially sad when someone believes in Jesus Christ but then falls away (Matt. 13:18-23). In a similar way, someone can become excited about biblical creation science but get discouraged and distracted by philosophies, intimidated by militant atheists, harassed by college professors, teased by friends, and so on. There are some who claim to be "former creationists" that have saddled up to ride with the Old Earth brand (or even with professing atheists), but when they have discussions with knowledgeable creationists, it is discovered that they only had superficial knowledge of biblical creation science. Worse, their theology (which is intertwined with it) is als