Biblical Creation and Evangelism

Something I keep stressing is that the Bible is God's Word, and true from the very first verse. There are people who, for various reasons, want to compromise and say that the Bible is true, but not the early chapters of Genesis — those have to be interpreted in light of the ever-changing whims of man-made science philosophies. Can't be believing in creation, can we? Yes, yes we can. Sunset over clouds on Lake Superior, credit: Freeimages / Archbob Why would they compromise? If you study on it, there are several possible reasons. One is that they are ashamed of God. Another is because they are more interested in what other people think of them rather than what God thinks. Many learn bad theology from liberal teachers. I reckon the most likely reason is that they have not really thought things through (which may stem from not being grounded in the Word). Capitulating on the opening chapters of Genesis leads to theological horse trading throughout the Bible, and undermines

Previously, we examined how professing Christians disparage Jesus , and that many of those are theistic evolutionists. Another way to undermine the gospel message is to say that Adam was just an illustration and not a real man. We hear that kind of thing and worse (such as the old "book of fairy tales" nonsense) from atheistic sidewinders, but people who actually believe the Bible should be  above dismissing Adam. Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, Johann Wenzel Peter If you study on it, you'll see that the Bible is written as history. Specific names, dates, events, and so on are provided. Mythology does not have such detail. The primary reason for Christians to reject a historical Adam (as well as special creation) is to force-fit evolutionary views into Scripture. These foolish folks cause themselves a heap of serious problems when they do this, such as needing to explain why a fictitious character is referred to as a real man in Luke's genealogy of Jesus (Lu

Once upon a time, a guy was involved with biblical creation science. Or, as he called it, young earth creationism (YEC). He became disillusioned with it, embraced evolutionism, turned on his fellow creationists in a show of public humiliation, and refused to give his name due to "harassment" from creationists. He trolls the Web to this day promoting his new religion and hating biblical creationists while pretending to be a respected Christian "professor". His knowledge of the Bible, creation science, theology, and other matters show that he is a fake creationist. I lack belie f that he is a Christian. Modified from an image at Morguefile by cbcs But this is not about that sidewinder and his fictitious story. Instead, we're talking about Denis Lamoureux, who rejected biblical creation and embraced theistic evolution. The only way to get millions of years and evolution out of the Bible is to put them in through eisegesis. Like the character described above

One of the signs of the end times that Jesus warned us about is that the "love of many will grow cold" (Matt. 24:12 HCSB), due to the increase of false teachers and other things. I believe this applies to the disdain that many people have for God's Word, and the blatant compromise from various old Earth, "progressive creationist", and especially from theistic evolutionists. (Many TEs, I am persuaded, are actually Deists because of their low view of Scripture and their vicious temperament toward biblical creationists.) Love for Scripture, and a straightforward reading of it, has grown cold for them. Image credit: Pixabay / mary1826 Unfortunately, too many professing Christians succumb to the minatory threat of ridicule; they don't cotton to looking like "science deniers" or "stupid" in the eyes of those who hate God. So, they compromise with long ages and even with theistic evolution. TEs often link arms with atheists in their ridic

Liberal theologians and theistic evolutionists attempt to say that Adam was not a literal person, but an archetype (or "protoplast"). The Bible does indeed use "type and shadow" imagery with real people (such as Joseph as a type of Christ ), but that does not excuse saying that Adam was not real. Adam and Eve expelled from Eden / Paul Gustave Doré, 1866 Saying that Adam was not real is essentially saying that Jesus, Peter, Paul, and many others in the Bible were wrong or even lying. The motive behind this is to reject the authority and inerrancy of Scripture, and elevates man's opinion above God's Word. Some people compromise with evolutionary ideas without thinking it through, but it leads to further serious compromises all the way through the Bible. There are some old Earth creationists as well as theistic evolutionists who falsely say that the Church Fathers rejected a literal Adam, or that the a ncients did not understand science, so they tol

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen We need something new. That Bible on the shelf (or wherever it is, I can't find mine) is tired and old. Fortunately, we have apostles that are busy anointing other apostles, and they are proclaiming direct revelations from God! I can be blessed , especially if I make seed offerings to their ministries. Praise the Lord! It's all about  me,  God  needs  me to fulfill my dreams, the Holy Spirit can't  function  without me , God  wants  me to meet all my material needs and desires, and maybe I, too, will be told by an angel to preach "Kingdom Power" . I'm so special, I don't know how he made it so long without me. Well, isn't that the kind of thing people are saying? Christians have turned into a bunch of biblically illiterate selfish owlhoots . We have enough problems of alleged "former Christians" who have rejected God and claimed he doesn't even exist (or God is evil) because he's not a magic wish-granti

The way some people cling to their "deep time" beliefs, sometimes including evolution, while claiming to believe the Bible is mighty disconcerting to me. They are elevating man-made science philosophies to the magisterial position and are telling God that he is wrong. Scriptural teaching begins to unravel — and that's why unbelievers attack the foundations of the Christian faith, the book of Genesis. Image credit: Pixabay / bluemorphos Now, don't get all het up, I'm not saying that every professing Christian who goes in for long ages is deliberately sabotaging the Bible or is unsaved. (If you study on it a spell, you might begin to wonder why some people attack biblical creationists and have a fervent desire to believe Earth is ancient.) What I am  saying is that many people really don't know what the Bible teaches, and the implications of forcing millions of years into the text. Especially when Jesus, Peter, Paul, and many others in Scripture believed

Christians refer to something called original sin, but that expression is not in the Bible. (Some uninformed people believe that sex is the original sin, but even a cursory reading of the opening chapters of Genesis will erase that idea.) It goes back to Adam and Eve. Made at TombstoneBuilder.com Atheists and other anti-creationists point to Genesis 2:17 and say, "God said they'd die when they ate the forbidden fruit, and they didn't. Therefore, it's an allegory or just a fairy tale!" Instead of listening to sidewinders like that, people should dig a little deeper. The literal translation is, "dying you shall die". That is, spiritual death happened then, and physical death came later, as well as affecting all of creation (Romans 8:22, Romans 5:12, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22). Old Earth creationists, theistic evolutionists, and other compromisers reject the truth that tampering with Genesis affects the gospel message. A series of compromises must

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Although the title of this piece sounds a mite like something from a conspiracy theory, there is a passel of reasons to think that a world religion may be coming. I was raised in the United Methodist Church, and my father was involved in the ecumenical movement, and the liberal UMC was (and is) involved in the World Council of Churches: "The World Council of Churches (WCC) is the broadest and most inclusive among the many organized expressions of the modern ecumenical movement, a movement whose goal is Christian unity ". Those of us who are knowledgeable in these matters know that their claim to uphold Scripture has no basis in reality, since it's based on theological and political liberalism, as well as a heapin' helpin' of compromise on biblical truth. Maybe it would have been easier to join Moon's Unification Church and accept him as the messiah. Modified Hindu Sri Yantra image from Clker clipart While the Bible does call

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen The first eleven chapters of Genesis are the most attacked section of the Bible (and with increasing intensity nowadays), and were understood to be actual history by most Christians throughout church history , until Christians began ceding science to secularists about 150 years ago . There's a good reason for understanding Genesis as written , since Jesus, Peter, Paul, and others referred to Genesis as literal history as well. Still, riders on the Old Earth Owlhoot Trail want to force in millions of years by way of the latest trends in man-made science philosophies, and tell God what he said and meant instead of taking the natural reading of Genesis. Naturally, atheists support them. The Expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise , Benjamin West , 1791 One area of compromise came from Scottish preacher Thomas Chalmers in 1814, who proposed a gap of long ages between the first two verses of Genesis, but the "Gap Theory" simply does not work

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen When biblical creationists take a stand for the plain reading of Genesis ( historical-grammatical exegesis ), some people get on the prod and want to throw down. Those are the ones who belong to cults, the Old Earth Creationists, Progressive Creationists, others — and especially theistic evolutionists. (For extensive material on theistic evolutionists, see " Waterless Clouds, Wandering Stars "). I'm puzzled as to why people who call themselves Christians want to compromise on what God's Word plainly says in order to accommodate atheistic interpretations of man-made science philosophies. I'm also amazed that compromisers team up with haywire atheists in attacking us; it gets mighty difficult to tell the atheists from those "Christians" at times! My e-book reader and an actual paper book. "Science has proven that the Bible is wrong, Genesis must be an allegory, and science — " Yeah, yeah. Hooray for the religion

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen In the original article, " The Dirt on Theistic Evolution ", which I recommend reading before continuing with this one, I took theistic evolutionists to task for their inconsistencies on their claims to believe the Bible and their magisterial views of science. The creation account was the primary emphasis in that article. This time, I'm focusing on the Genesis Flood account. The Deluge / John Martin, 1834 Old-Earth creationists, theistic evolutionists, Hugh Ross, and other owlhoots who want to compromise on what Scripture plainly says for the sake of "science" need to find some way to ignore the account of the Genesis Flood. They must wedge long ages into the Word of God so it appears to agree with current atheistic interpretations of scientific evidence. Biblical creationists uphold the authority of Scripture, and tend to be skeptical of old Earth science — especially when such science is full of bad logic and atheistic presu

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen They Say Compromise Is Good  A few months back, I getting dissatisfied with the church I was attending, and wanted to saddle up and find another church in the Kingston, New York area. Not very promising, since there are polar opposites: emotionally-driven gatherings, and the traditional liberal outfits. Those who actually believe the Bible and can give proper exegesis are difficult to find around here. One church had some standard fare in their statement of faith (including the inerrancy of Scripture, which is very important), and I reckoned that I could get along with that. But not a peep about creation. I sent them an e-mail inquiring about their position on it. The response was disappointing, saying that creation was an unimportant side issue, and anyway, the Framework Hypothesis  was just fine for that pastor. Not hardly! The Framework Hypothesis is a compromise position where Genesis does not mean what it says [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] . His church claim

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Some Christians say that nature is the "67th book of the Bible" because "natural revelation" (Romans 1:19-20) comes from God and cannot conflict with Scripture. However, there is a caveat that nature needs to be properly understood. People who do that tend to be compromisers, interpreting the written Word of God in light of current science trends and philosophies. I remember reading how an old-earth Christian was excited about how the Big Bang had been "proven right", so his faith had support. Our faith is supposed to be in Scripture (Isaiah 40:8, Matthew 24:35), not ever-changing naturalistic interpretations of what is observed by scientists. Indeed, what did this guy do when his "proof" of the Big Bang was dropped on the dusty trail ? Worse, some of these people will compromise with evolution, saying that God used it in creation, as if adding God to atheistic views somehow gives that a blessing. Natural revelati

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen When presenting the gospel, one thing that I emphasize the importance of biblical creation. Not for its own sake, but because of the importance of the authority of the Bible for the Christian. In my Weblogs and at The Question Evolution Project (as well as the Google Plus version ), I post not only science supporting special creation and refuting evolution, but warnings about atheism's useful idiots who use atheistic interpretations of scientific evidence and elevate "science" into a magisterial position above Scripture. Theistic evolutionists and Old Earth Creationists (OECs) are compromisers who will call creationists "liars" and enemies of Christianity (it is interesting to be called a liar by a liar ) — and still claim to believe the Bible. Jehovah's Witnesses use creation and evolution to distort the truth Atheists, OECs and theistic evolutionists are not the only dangers to a proper understanding of Scripture. Elsewh