Biblical Creation and Evangelism

Unfortunately, cancer seems to be increasingly common, and I think it's safe to say that it would be difficult to find someone who has not encountered cancer, whether personally, through friends, or relatives. (It's tremendously ironic that John Wayne's final movie, The Shootist , was about a man dying of cancer made by an actor dying of cancer.) Many people even refer to it as "the C word". Sometimes, people worry that a rash, cough, lump, or something else is becoming cancerous. By all means, get things checked out by your doctor. Cancer cells image credit: Dr. Cecil Fox / National Cancer Institute Things were going mighty fine in Eden. Everything was created very good (Gen. 1:31), then Adam and Eve chose to listen to Satan, and brought sin into the world — and with sin came death (Rom. 5:12) and the curse. Genetic degradation began, and those wonderful repair systems within us are unable to keep up with the demand. For the Christian, we can look forward

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Pastor Chris " Fighting for the Faith " Rosebrough presented a lecture that I used as a springboard for this article. First, some background on the spiritual condition. Western society has never had morality that we can be proud of, since it has been in a decline for quite a spell. And it's getting worse. Increasing violence, sexual immorality, atheism and other false religions, mental illness, abortion, defamation, lying, corruption at many levels, and so much more. How did we get in such a state? Image credit: David Castillo Dominici / FreeDigitalPhotos.net The simple answer is sin, which began in Eden. It escalated (Gen. 6:5) and God judged the world with the Great Flood (Gen 7:23). It didn't take long for man's sinful nature to rear it's ugly head afterward, but God promised never to flood the entire world again (Gen. 9:14-15). Don't think we're getting out of this easily, because the next Judgement will be by

A common occurrence for Christians and creationists is to have a smug atheist issue the demand, "Prove to me that God exists using science". These people who claim to believe in science and "reason" are arguing from their naturalistic presuppositions, but demonstrate not only their ignorance of the nature of God, but are also committing the formal logical fallacy known as the category error . That is, it's impossible to use man-made science philosophies and methods to "prove" the existence of God, who exists outside the confines of time, space, and matter. Then the owlhoots claim victory over the stupid Christian and proclaim that God does not exist, then try to prove evolution. However, there is abundant evidence for the existence of God, beginning from inside the questioner (Romans 1:18-23, Psalm 53:1 ESV). Image of God by Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni, painted in the 1500s, modified by a graphic from Clker clipart Similarly, a

Mankind has exhibited pride and a desire to be in control since Eden (Gen. 3:6), and that pride was manipulated by the serpent's deceit, that they would "be like God" (Gen: 4-5). While being inquisitive and investigative is a gift of God, people have elevated their own wisdom to a lofty perch and have disdain for the wisdom of God, preferring scientism and evolutionism to truth. And yet, we seem like idiots to them . Greek philosopher Epicurus, evolutionist and hedonist (public domain image, modified) The "wise" philosophers of the ages have sought to answer the mysteries of life, and some have made religious out of esoteric knowledge. Whether the views are secular or form some kind of religion, they try to supplant the Word of God . God has given us true wisdom in his Word (Prov. 1:7, Prov. 2:6, Rom. 11:33, 1 Cor. 1:23), which is far above the false wisdom of the world (1 Cor. 1:20, Isaiah 55:8-9). The Bible is a very binary book. It does not wallo

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

For Question Evolution Day, the link between evolution and the inerrancy of Scripture is explored. People who know their Bible and have a good understanding of doctrine know that evolution and creation are irreconcilable. Theistic evolution, the "Gap Theory", "Progressive Creation" and other compromises require eisegesis (reading into the Scriptures). People who do this elevate man's "wisdom" above that of God's revelation. That is ridiculous (1 Cor. 1.20, Psalm 14.1-3). Why would anyone want to add philosophies and interpretations of evidence that are based on atheism? And yet, the inerrancy of Scripture is of paramount importance to a proper understanding of the Bible. What is your ultimate standard? Is it God's Word, or the ever-changing whims of man-made science philosophies? For the purposes of this article, only inerrancy of Scripture of the five fundamentals will be discussed.  The attacks on inerrancy, beginning in Genesis 1, brought

Did you know that the one who was most influential in forming the modern scientific method was a Biblical creationist? Yes, it was Sir Francis Bacon. Although he has been called a great man of faith, he actually did damage to our understanding of science. He wanted to leave God out of science and be strictly secular with it. He had an unscriptural belief that God's revelation was expressed in "two books". One of those is the Bible, the other is nature. When "interpreted correctly", they are in harmony. (Frankly, this sounds cultic, smacking of the Mormon claim that the Bible is true "as far as it is translated correctly".) Compromisers like Hugh Ross will give priority to the current understanding and beliefs of modern science trends, interpreting the Bible to fit with those preconceptions. Christians gradually surrendered science to the secularists. Then, they began sacrificing their belief in the authority of Scripture. There are two parts to the fo

"We have to answer the current scientific attitude toward Christianity, not the attitude scientists adopted one hundred years ago. Science is in continual change and we must try to keep abreast of it. We may mention such things; but we must mention them lightly and without claiming that they are more than 'interesting.' Sentences beginning “Science has now proved” should be avoided. If we try to base our apologetic on some recent development in science, we shall usually find that just as we have put the finishing touches to our argument science has changed its mind and quietly withdrawn the theory we have been using as our foundation stone." — C.S. Lewis, "Christian Apologetics", 1945 The above quote ties in nicely with some things I have said in the past. Sometimes, Christians want to be convincing, so we resort to assuming that impressive (or sensationalistic) reports are true without verifying them. I have received the old "atheis