Many apologists seem to side-step the whole issue of the "so-called"
millions
of years of death & suffering as it relates to the Creation account in
Genesis.
Have you delt with the theological, Biblical & philosophy behind the
following statements?
First: "Since God is the Author of Creation. . .Which every Christian
would agree!"
Is God also the Author of Millions of Years of Death, Bloodshed,
Disease, Suffering, Mutations, and Extinction?
In other words, is God going down the "Progressive Creation" highway of
millions of years of time, leaving "Road-Kill" where ever He goes?
Is God cruel, sadistic and extremely wasteful? Is that "Very" Good?
Is that what the Bible clearly teaches?
There are many who have rejected the Genesis record of Creation
on what they believe are "scientific grounds." They believe that the
current secular (naturalistic / humanistic) teachings of evolution and
millions of years of earth history are accurate (e.g. Meredith Kline,
Hugh
Ross to name a few). Nonetheless, they have involved God in their
particular versions of Creation, with "Theistic Evolution" and
"Progressive Creation" being some of the more popular
opinions circulating among churches today.
This "slippery slope" is dangerous because they are not really
defending Creation, but are actually bringing into question the very
character and nature of God. By trusting man's fallible opinions over
God's inerrant Word, they are making God the author of millions of
years of death, suffering, bloodshed, disease, mutations, and extinction,
etc.
The obvious question is: "Would an all-powerful and loving God
actually use this cruel and extremely wasteful process of evolution to
create the world?" According to the Genesis record, God called the
process
"Good," and when He finished, God proclaimed His creation "Very good!"
If He did create the world using this sadistic method over millions of
years,
that would mean that suffering and death are "Good" and consistent with
the character and nature of God. It is ironic that these same people
would insist that there will be no death, suffering, sickness, and
disease in heaven, which would be contrary to even their sense of what
is good.
Tennyson observed our sin-cursed world and put it this way:
"Nature red (i.e. bloody) in tooth and claw." According to these
supposed creationists, science has proven, that it has been that way
for millions of years. That's because they start outside of the Bible
with
our present "groaning" world (Rom. 8:22) and extrapolate back, and then
use that as the basis to re-interpret the Scripture, believing that the
"Present is the key to the past." They fail to realize that it was God
who was there, and He has given us His account of Creation in Genesis.
Hence, divine revelation is the only trustworthy key to the past,
present, and future!
Sadly, many influential Christians have endorsed these teachings
by recommending their books, publishing their articles, and even giving
them prime air-time. Furthermore, most Christian colleges and
seminaries are confusing our young people, teaching that they can
believe death and bloodshed are not the consequence of the Fall of Man
(Rom.5:12), which invalidates the reason why Jesus Christ--the last Adam
(1Cor. 15:45)--came to die and shed His blood on the Cross. According
to many of these teachers who embrace these naturalistic
presuppositions, there was not a Global Flood and that most fossils are
not the result of a world-wide catastrophe, but merely millions of years
of
our loving, Heavenly Father "creating."
This compromise is occurring because the Church has allowed
science "falsely so-called" (i.e. evolutionary beliefs) to gain
acceptance.
As a result, those who object to a literal Genesis (which is
the basis of all Christian theology such as marriage, original sin, the
curse and death, the virgin birth of Messiah, and redemption), actually
undermine the foundation for Biblical doctrine. Consequently, many who
hold to these evolutionary paradigms, have doubted the Christian faith,
questioning the authority of God and His Word, while defending the
theories of men.
Paul warned the Colossians to "Beware lest any man spoil you
through philosophy and vain deceit, after the rudiments of the world,
and not after Christ...(2:8)" Furthermore, the Ephesian elders were told
that false teachers will come in from the outside and even arise from
the church, speaking "perverse things, to draw away disciples after them"
(Acts 20:30).
God is not the "author of confusion!" He has spoken as plainly
as possible regarding the Creation, the Fall, the Flood, and the future
restoration. The straightforward reading of the Genesis record clearly
teaches that God created in six literal days. Even in Exodus 20:9-11,
God based our seven-day week on the days of Creation: "for in six days
the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in
them, and rested on the seventh day."
Why then the confusion? We are finite fallen creatures in a
sin-cursed world using our fallible minds tainted with false humanistic
assumptions. This often leads to Christians trying to re-define what
the infinite all-knowing Creator clearly communicated His infallible
Word.
Christians leaders living in today's society should examine their
understanding of Genesis to see if there are any secular assumptions
that are influencing their beliefs about God and His Creation as set
forth
in His Word. We all must also bear in mind, it is not dishonorable to
admit
when we are wrong, for it is only humbly admitting we are a little wiser
today.
Paul, please respond (if possible), I would like for you to
consider these thoughts. If not, please give careful consideration
to this topic, because apologetics must deal with Genesis!!
Either it is the Word of God and infallible or it is not trustworthy
and fallible.
BTW, So I now ask you a simular question you asked Mr. Ham:
"What AMOUNT of evidence would it take to convince you that YOUR view of
the virgin birth of Christ or His resurrection was wrong?"
Thanks for your time! Hope to hear from you soon!
Because of Christ,
Kurt Streutker
sola fide, sola gratia, sola Scriptura, soli Deo gloria
BTW--You wrote:
I had a brief conversation with Ken Ham when he was at a seminar here
awhile
ago. At the seminar all day he presented evidences against evolution and
an old
earth. He presented evidences in favor of a young earth and a global
flood.
So I asked him one question: "What AMOUNT of evidence would it take to
convince
you that YOUR view is wrong?" He replied to the effect that NO amount of
evidence would suffice, because his view was based on presupposing a
literal
interpretation of Genesis. As he put it, his view is circular.
(BTW, what evidence would you need to not believe
in the virgin birth of Christ or His resurrection?
I didn't bother to ask the next question, which was, "If your view is not
based on evidence at all, why do you present evidence in these seminars,
as
though it matters?"
Normally in a debate, to be accused of circular reasoning generally
results
in a rebuttal. But in Ham's case he admitted it proudly. It is circular,
but
Ham moves only in the best of circles. (See the chapter on circular
reasoning
in "Classical Apologetics" by Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley).
In the context of geology, astronomy etc. to admit circularity is to
admit
defeat. The way Morris and Ham try to evade defeat is by immediately
elevating
the debate to a philosophical level, where presuppositions are at issue.
But
that is not the level on which the evidences were discussed; they
appeared to be
talking only about geology, biology etc. So they try to have their cake
and
eat it too. This technique seems to be inherent in Scientific Creationism
since
Morris first wrote about it in the 1960's. (It seems even more convincing
nowadays, with Relativism being the Spirit of the Age).
The above is a critique that will probably go over the heads of the radio
audience, so I don't recommend you to use it, but it serves to indicate
what you
are dealing with. I agree with you that a debate is probably not
appropriate.
Young-Earth Creation Science is now hitting the BIG TIME. It is growing
exponentially, globally. It is clear that forces outside the Church are
not
going to be effective in stopping it. But there are plenty of ways that
Creation Science can be critiqued from WITHIN a Biblical, theological
viewpoint.
Many of these have been addressed in the ASA's journal, Perspectives on
Science
and Christian Faith. A lot of the best resources are more than a mouse
click
away. We are working to change that, and we are in need of volunteers.
The
ASA has organized a Communications Commission to provide additional
resources
for people such as Ken. For instance, there is a plan to upload full-text
articles from Perspectives to the web server. But this takes effort and
time.
If you care about this situation and would like to help, ASA can use your
spare time and/or funds. Support ASA!
Paul Arveson
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]