Skip to main content

Rejecting the Light of Biblical Creation

Several months ago, I was in a hair cuttery and we were making conversation. It came up that I write creation science material, and the lady said she had never heard of it. Her nearby co-worker had a modicum of knowledge, but that was it. Living in a culture that is saturated with atheistic materialism, that is not a surprise.

Unbelievers and many Christians reject the light of biblical creation science, including misrepresenting and lying outright. See why it is important to our message
Freeimages / Brano Hudak
People are in spiritual darkness (John 3:19), are blinded to the light of the truth (2 Cor. 4:4), and cannot understand spiritual matters of any depth (1 Cor. 2:14). While it is not up to us to have brilliant arguments and save the lost (1 Cor. 2:1-5), we are to sanctify Christ as Lord and be ready to present the gospel (1 Peter 3:15). The Holy Spirit does the drawing, convicting, and saving.

Evolution is foundational to atheism (which in turn are foundational to naturalistic philosophies, secular humanism, and so on) as well as some other non-Christian religions. Some people, like the barber mentioned above, are ignorant of the truth. After all, the secular science industry is well-heeled and can spread their message of despair quite easily. People think evolution is science, so it is passed along without question.

There is another kind of ignorance, and that is willful. There are people who seek to suppress the truth (Rom. 1:18-23), so they reject biblical creation as well as the gospel message itself. Misotheists pretend God does not exist, but it is easy to tell that they vehemently hate him. They have some knowledge of creation science, but refuse to understand it well enough to accurately characterize or discuss it. Lying about biblical creation (as well as organizations and individuals) is common — but their dehumanizing of us does not make atheism and evolution any less false.

I'll use the word foundational once more; it describes the importance of Genesis to the rest of the gospel message and all major Christian doctrines. People who are knowledgeable about biblical creation can be prepared to help remove stumbling blocks to people coming to Jesus as Savior and Lord. (Indeed, evolution with its scientific veneer destroys faith and makes atheists of people.) Ministries like this as well as the big guys provide information to equip believers and point the way to genuinely-seeking unbelievers to obtain answers.
Often, Christianity is brushed aside as irrelevant, an unreasonable, blind faith. More to the point, Christians who uphold the first 11 chapters of Genesis find these are under attack above any other part of Scripture. Opinions about the Bible and the Creator abound outside the Church. Frequently these are strawmen arguments, not biblically sound ones. Of course, many hold blatantly anti-biblical views. Scripture teaches God created mankind in His image, but ever since the Fall, mankind has rejected the true God and, instead, has invented gods of his own (idols)—see Broken images. No matter how fallacious, people cling to these unbiblical views. Not surprisingly, a god made in your image is undoubtedly more convenient than the God of the Bible, who is perfectly just, and condemns every little trespass that deviates from His good, acceptable and perfect will (Romans 12:2).

I suggest two reasons why many dismiss biblical creationist thinking:

To read the entire article, see "Is ignorance bliss? How the world responds to the challenge of biblical creation".

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

Gopher Wood and Noah's Ark

Something that has puzzled readers of the sixth chapter of Genesis is the use of the term gopher wood. Footnotes often say that the "Hebrew term is uncertain", and Bible translations differ — "I know what that means, Cowboy Bob! Noah commanded his sons, "Shem, you gopher water, Ham can gopher more pitch, and Japheth can gopher wood". No. Anyway, Bible translations differ. Many use the term gopher wood, and using the translations in my copy of theWord Bible Software , Coverdale (1535,) Geneva (1587), and Tyndale (1526) translated it as pine. The NIV translates it as cypress and adds the "uncertain" reference. The KJV, NKJV, NASB, HCSB, ESV, WEB all render the term as gopher wood. Credit: Wikimedia Commons /  Cimerondagert  ( CC by-SA 4.0 ) An excellent possibility is that God was not specifying a particular tree that has disappeared since then, but that Noah was to use hardwood. Getting into the Hebrew language, we see the root word tha