Wednesday, July 31, 2019

When Professing Christians Attack Biblical Creationists

Sometimes Christians who have a view of apologetics and an old earth attack Christians who believe in recent creation and presuppositional apologetics, sometimes reasoning like atheists. Such things need to be addressed.
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

One of the most difficult things about being a Christian is: other Christians. Believers can have their faith adversely affected or even set it aside and unbelievers use our treatment of each other as an excuse to ridicule the faith and justify their rebellion against God. Those verses on how believers are supposed to treat each other seem to have been excised from Bibles nowadays. It gets discouraging.

It gets mighty frustrating when we are working on helping the church with apologetics and biblical creation, then some tinhorn from a different camp comes along with his or her own ideas and flings horse apples at us in the guise of "reason" while pretending to do Jesus a big favor. We expect viperine tactics from atheists and other unbelievers, but it gets mighty smelly coming from professing Christians.

Southern Evangelical Seminary and Bible College has a doctrinal statement that seems reasonable to me, but some things are missing that people like me would like to know about. Adam Tucker and others make it clear that they are none too keen on biblical creation science. It may be from loyalty to one of the founders, Dr. Norman Geisler, who believed in an old earth. SES people think creation science and the age of the earth are not all that important, but they have had more than their share of attacking biblical creationists. It reminds me of atheopaths who exclaim, "I don't hate God because he doesn't exist!", then seek their identity in their professed unbelief and act like drunken outlaws shooting up the town at sunset.

Tucker has had Ken Ham in his sights more than once. Like Bill Nye, he acts like creation beliefs are unique to Ham despite the numerous like-minded organizations and individuals. Let me rein in a minute here and say that I have some disagreements with Ken Ham as well as other creationists (thinking people do that), but there is no reason to tear down individuals and the ministries they represent.

I was getting "prepped" for presuppositional apologetics through several creationist organizations, and it was brought home to me by Dr. Jason Lisle's The Ultimate Proof of Creation. From my observations and experiences, people hate presuppositional apologetics because they have been misinformed about the apologetic, and also because we have a high view of Scripture; the ever-changing whims of man-made science philosophies are not above the Word of God. 

Learning and promoting this apologetic has been very beneficial for me, but it is frustrating to see division in the church over not only apologetic methods (Norman Geisler supported classical apologetics and I understand that he was no friend of presuppositional apologetics), but which flavor of presup (bringing to my mind 1 Cor. 1:12-13). It is indeed unfortunate that Adam Tucker's attack on Ken Ham was two-pronged, going after presup and biblical creation.

Listen up, pilgrims. If you're going to saddle up and ride the Criticism Trail, don't be acting like an atheist, you savvy? Tucker's article reminded me of an atheist who said, "There is something wrong with all religions. Therefore, Christianity is also wrong and there is no God". Like atheists, Tucker used personal attacks, argued from ignorance, used straw man arguments, brought in a heapin' helpin' of prejudicial conjecture, and more.

Worse, he attacked a Christian personally while damning him with faint praise. Tucker does not believe biblical creation (young earth), nor does he understand presuppositional apologetics. Those difficulties do not stop him from writing uninformed polemics. He called Ken Ham's views "dangerous", but what is truly dangerous (and disgusting) is Tucker's malignant reasoning. Ironically, Tucker's logic was self-refuting — if he was consistent, he could not believe the Bible himself!

Here is an article that I learned about through The Domain for Truth. It contains an examination of  Adam Tucker's complaints and arguments that I hope you will find very useful.
It’s an article written by my past internet foil, Adam Tucker. He has provided us with a helpful treatise expaining the methodology behind how SES teaches apologetic engagement. He excellently contrasts a classical/Thomist approach to apologetics from a presuppositional/Bible-based one that I believe lends us insight for sharpening our apologetic focus.
To read it all, click on "Ken Ham vs. the SES Apologetic".

Wednesday, July 24, 2019

Creation and Embarrassment

It has long seemed contradictory to me that there are Christians who ride for the defense of the Bible, but then shy away from the Genesis Flood, creation, and the young earth. It appears that those Christians are not fully signed on with the inerrancy of the Word, treating biblical authority like a buffet.

There are professing Christians who claim to believe the authority of the Bible, then deny recent creation and the Flood. The evidence supports our faith.
Credit: Morguefile / imelenchon (modified)
Am I doing them a disservice by questioning their commitment to the authority of the Bible they profess to believe and defend? I'll go a bit further and also say that I think that they have a problem with pride. We want the hands at the Darwin Ranch to think we're sorta smart after all, so we cede the age of the earth and the Flood to secular views. In an older article, I asked if we shut up about creation, would unbelievers leave us alone?

I disremember where i said it, but I attended a church that claimed to believe in recent creation. They did not want to be "labeled" and kept their belief tied up out back. I considered this stealth creation to be cowardly and dishonest.

One of the primary verses for apologists is 1 Peter 3:15, but many forget the first part about sanctifying Christ as Lord. Our ultimate authority is God's written Word, not the ever-changing whims of secular science interpretations. However, although we walk by faith, God expects us to use the minds that he has given us. We not only reason from the Scriptures, but we also have evidence to support our faith.

No, belief in evolution or an old earth isn't going to get you lassoed by Satan and dragged off into Perdition. Genesis is foundational for major Christian doctrines, however. Look at what is happening in the world today where marriage and sexuality are being defined away from what God originally established. People reject the authority of the Word and they become gods; this is a form of idolatry.

Those of us who are not ashamed of the Bible can take a stand, even if some subjects are unpopular. Although our faith is not grounded in scientific evidence, we do have reasons for our belief in recent creation and the Genesis Flood. We do not have any valid reason to compromise with worldly philosophies or to get the approval of others.
Does the age of the earth matter to your faith? The witnessing approach known as Evangelism Explosion was known for its diagnostic questions, so let me take that approach and ask a few diagnostic questions. Answer yes or no to the following:
    Question 1: Does the account of the creation of the universe as presented in Genesis depict literal events in a historical manner the way the gospels present the life of Jesus in a historical manner?

    Question 2: Is it important to stand up for a “literal” understanding of the creation of the universe as depicted in Genesis the way we stand up for a “literal” understanding of the death and resurrection of Jesus?

    Question 3:  Are you as proud and willing to stand for and defend the doctrine of creation  as depicted in Genesis – in 6 days – as you are to stand for and defend the resurrection of Jesus on the third day?

. . .

Many Christians think it sufficient simply to testify about Jesus and not concern themselves with “divisive” matters of origins. But is it sufficient? If you just preach Jesus, which Jesus would that be? . . .

You see if you can’t (or won’t) ground your Jesus in the scriptures which speak of the origins of all things –  the scriptures which  Jesus says testify about him (John 5.39) –  then people will break the 2nd commandment (not to make idols Ex 20.4) and create a Jesus in their own image to suit their own likings.  And they will reject the Jesus who scripture says created all things (John 1.3).  Along with that  rejection of Jesus as creator – is coupled the rejection of humans as male and female. And who are you to stop them? If you reject the clear teaching on origins, are they not right to claim they can likewise reject the teaching on origins? Further, if the teaching on origins  (which includes the genesis of genders) is inconsequential, is it not also inconsequential if they form, and make up their own genders?  If you cannot bring yourself to affirm, as did the early Jews,  the early church, early Jewish historians like Josephus, and Jesus himself (Mark 10.6) – the foundational teaching that at the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days, and on the sixth day, created humans as male and female; if you you cannot honor and accept that yourself , then why would you have any expectation that an unbelieving generation would honor and accept God’s design for humans?
To read this article in its entirety, click on "Are young earth evidences needed to defend Christian Faith?"

Wednesday, July 17, 2019

A False Claim about the Evolution of Christianity

Since materialists believe that everything evolved, that also means religion itself evolved as well. A Darwinist believes that societies conjured up gods via natural selection when their population levels reached a million people, and these gods were ill-tempered.

Materialists believe that since everything else evolved, religion must have as well. One foolish speculation is not logical and reeks of desperation.
Background image courtesy of Why?Outreach
There are far too many fallacies in this foolish speculation to count. (One reason biblical creationists emphasize logic and critical thinking to so that people can learn to catch atheists and evolutionists in their bad reasoning and falsehoods.) There stories reek of desperation. Such a notion is also self-refuting, such as how love, compassion, forgiveness, and other good things are overlooked.
A typical theory on the ‘evolution of religion’ commits multiple logical blunders, not the least of which is ignoring evidence.
What’s wrong with this line of reasoning? ‘The Greeks reached a certain population size. At that population size, the idea of Zeus arose. Zeus was a vengeful god. Having a vengeful god gave the powerful a way to control the population. Conclusion: This explains the origin of religions.’
To laugh and also learn, read the rest by clicking on "Did Christianity Evolve from a ‘Vengeful God’ Myth?"

Wednesday, July 10, 2019

Compartmentalizing Creation

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

When I began doing creation apologetics many centuries ago, I foolishly tried to divorce the Bible from scientific and logical evidence. My approach was only discussing theology when necessary, keeping scientific evidence for creation separate, arguing on neutral ground. Essentially, I was compartmentalizing.

We cannot separate science and theology, especially when discussing origins. It may seem valid on the surface, but such an approach will not work.
Floral compartments image credit: Unsplash / Michael Aleo
One big problem with the idea of neutral ground is that it is contrary to Scripture. If you ride up to the top of the hill and get the bigger picture, you'll also see that discussions of origins are metaphysical in nature. Really, they involve theology. 

Have you ever noticed that folks who want both sides presented in an unbiased view so people can "make up their own minds" seldom (if ever) accurately represent biblical creation science? They are biased toward materialism, therefore favoring atheistic interpretations of evidence.


You want equal time, pilgrim? The secularists dominate science, so creation science ministries exist so we can present evidence that is suppressed. But they don't want you to hear our side, nor do they want to hear it themselves. Suppressing evidence is not science, nor is shouting down creationists and crying, "Liar!" while throwing outdated, irrelevant secularist links at us. You savvy? For an interesting discussion on accusations of creationists selectively rejecting science, see "Denouncing Science".

Both creationists and evolutionists have their starting points. Those of us with a high view of Scripture presuppose the truth of the Bible and creation, while evolutionists insist that their materialistic views are the only way to use science. Secularists fail to realize that their arbitrary view of science is based on metaphysical philosophies.

To take the compartmentalization concept a step further, I still have a tendency to do that. (Posts and articles on this site lean more toward theology than those at Piltdown Superman or Radaractive, but there is still some theology over there.) While I occasionally use this site to discuss various biblical topics and some may be considered side issues, I realized that I am compartmentalizing again.

My calling is to help equip Christians defend the faith regarding origins, so I tend to avoid certain side issues. (On more than one occasion, I have been surprised by an out-of-the-blue query at The Question Evolution Project on Fazebook where I had to reply, "I have no idea.") Like with politics, sometimes topics must necessarily overlap — especially when they involve core doctrines of the faith or matters that are extremely important to Christians. We cannot fully compartmentalize between science, the Bible, and certain doctrines.

The article linked below is specific for Creation Ministries International (after all, they can speak of their own ministry's experiences and policies), but I think you will see that it applies to related ministries as well. There are two feedback letters and their replies. To see it, click on "Should CMI ‘stick to the science’?"

Wednesday, July 3, 2019

Evangelism and the Genesis Flood

While professing Christians claim to believe the Bible, far too many put atheistic interpretations of modern science philosophies into a magisterial position. That is, Scripture is interpreted through the spectacles of long ages. This is backwards.

Some professing Christians shy away from or even deny the global Genesis Flood. They think it is a problem for evangelism. Such a view causes several problems.
Credit: RGBStock / rkirbycom
Some who compromise with secular views put down biblical creation with the falsehood that it hinders evangelism, so they ride for the old earth brand. (Did you ever notice that these folks usually deny the global Flood of Genesis in one way or another?) Bible believers teach the hard truth of sin, Judgment, repentance, and redemption.

People may shy away from the Flood because of old earth beliefs, but also because it describes judgment against the wicked people of the day. It is referred to in the Bible, and Peter even likened the Flood to the coming final Judgment (2 Peter 3:5-6). Discussing the Genesis Flood is actually helpful in evangelism.
Some Christians claim that insisting on a literal Genesis is a hindrance to evangelism. Since science has supposedly proved that the creation and Flood it describes weren’t real, historical events, they see a literal Genesis as an intellectual stumbling block to potential converts. However, this thinking is completely backward. It is the denial, not the affirmation, of Genesis that is damaging to effective evangelism.
To read the rest of this short article, click on "The Genesis Flood and Evangelism".