Skip to main content

Repenting of Old Earth Creationism

It may be surprising, but repentance is not preached nearly as much as it should (Matt. 4:17, Mark 1:14-15, Luke 24:46-47, Acts 3:19, 2 Tim. 2:25, 2 Peter 3:9, Rev. 3:19). It applies not only to the unsaved, but to Christians who are not following the truth. How does this apply to old-earth creationists?

Those who give the false teaching of an old earth need to repent.
Credit: Modified at imgflip from a graphic at FreeImages by Claudia Meyer
Repentance from false beliefs is readily apparent, such as Arianism, Pelagianism, Gnosticism and Docetism, and others. These are far more significant than, say, disagreements regarding baptism. (I have to restrain myself about the war between Reformed and Arminian doctrines, each has adherents that act like cultists belonging to the One True Faith™ and essentially calling the other side heretics. Why I oughta...) There is a difference between heresies and disagreements. Learn it.

One thing that many false teaching have in common is denial of scriptural authority. Theistic evolutionists are coyotes smuggling evolution into the Bible, and with that comes a form of the Pelagian heresy. For owlhoots like that and other old-earthers, the Bible doesn't mean what it says, biblical creationists are deluded or dishonest, and we need to elevate atheistic interpretations of science into the magisterial position above God's Word.

While biblical creationists are not saying that believing in millions of years or evolution is a guaranteed ticket to Hell, those people need to examine their priorities. Why are long ages so important to them? It is also curious that they need to perform massive eisegesis by putting long ages into the Bible so they can pull that concept back out. The authority of current trends in man-made science are clearly more important to them than the inerrancy of Scripture. Mayhaps they should seriously consider repenting of their disparagement of God's Word and alliance with atheism.
A while ago I wrote an article explaining how the idea of millions of years entered the church, and I closed with a call for repentance. At a recent seminar, a man asked me publicly to explain my strong words. After all, aren’t all of us, even the godliest believers, subject to error? Must we confess every error before God?

This man was specifically concerned about the implications for two old-earth creationists he highly respected. As he explained in a later email, they were dear brothers in Christ who had dedicated their lives to the gospel. They may be wrong, he said, but there is “a difference between being wrong and sinful deception.”

That’s a good question that has broad implications for every believer’s walk with God. It is hard to imagine how any of us could avoid errors in our thinking. So is it possible to walk in fellowship with God even though we are wrong about some biblical issues? Or are we living in sin until we correct those wrong views?
To read the rest of this interesting and helpful article, click on "Old-Earth Creationism—Is It a Sin?" You can also consider the principles for applications in other areas.
 

Comments

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

Disappointment with Young Earth Creation

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  First, a note for anyone who is curious. The usual format: introduction with some of my thoughts plus links for useful information, excerpts of featured articles, then links to keep reading. I put my name on it and call it an article when I have more to say. This one will be different. I will reference older articles, then add some thoughts that I hope will prove helpful. There is more following the excerpt and link. So, does anyone remember Ken Keathley? Medal image manufactured at Custom Medal Maker Several years ago, Ken Keathley renounced young earth creationism to accept an old earth view. Apparently, he was disappointed by people in the young earth community. No kidding? Taking Friendly Fire This is where I'm going to open up and get personal with both of my readers. Ken Keathley is not the only one who has been disappointed, and in addition, I've been deeply hurt by the young earth community. Things I have posted on social(ist) media have been &qu

Evaluating Truth Claims in Genesis

Some people try to dismiss Genesis as myth containing spiritual truth using elements from the pagan neighbors of the Hebrews. Others say it is misunderstood, as if the Creator of the universe was unable to communicate with us. With closer inspection, we see that Genesis is a historical narrative. Credit: RGBStock /  Billy Frank Alexander The idea that the early chapters of Genesis are mythological should not be accepted by professing Christians, as there are serious problems that result. (One of these is that Jesus, Peter, Paul, and others referred to these chapters as literal history, so by denying this, one is calling them liars!) Also, there are repercussions with the gospel message. Read some classical mythology, then come back to Genesis and see the difference. Myths are vague and have a different flow, but the Bible is precise. Indeed, even the sequence of creation days is specific — a day itself is defined. Interestingly, many translations have in Genesis 1:5 less accurate by us