Evolution and the compromise of the church

In this chapter we are not necessarily debating evolution vs. creation, however, we would like to examine the history of evolution. Where did it come from and what are its roots? When we discover the true history of evolution we will learn that evolution is not a science, it is a religion. Unfortunately, many in the church today have adopted evolution as science and have attempted to make room for evolution in the Bible. Just the very nature of attempting this is dangerous and leads to many more questions that would undermine our faith.
Before we examine the history of evolution, we must first look at what evolution, as we know it today, actually is. When we use the term ‘evolution’, most everyone understands that it is defined as the idea that living things in our world have come into being through unguided ‘naturalistic processes’ starting from some mass of subatomic particles and radiation which began around 20 billion years ago. This is what evolution is defined as in public schools across America. There are four basic areas of study within the sphere of evolution. 1. Cosmology is the branch of astronomy which deals with the origin of and formation of the general structure of the universe. 2. Abiogenesis refers to the first life, the production of living organisms from inanimate matter. 3. Micro-evolution refers to populational and species change through time. Though we need not be deceived by the term ‘micro-evolution’, this is actually a scientific fact that does not undermine scripture but rather can be seen in scripture. This micro-evolution is a change in the variations within a species and not changing into whole different species. 4. Macro-evolution refers to the progression to more complex life forms. This is what most people think of when they think of evolution. This obviously has never been observed and is scientifically impossible. The idea of ‘natural selection’ is a term used in conjunction with micro-evolution. However, the process of ‘natural selection’ is not a proof for the belief in evolution. Natural Selection is based on the observation that there is variation among individuals in a population. However, these variations cannot create something new. The classic example of this is the peppered moth. This moth changed its color in response to its environment. In the industrial era of England, the white moths shifted to dark moths allowing for camouflage against predatory birds. Before the population shift both light and dark moths were present. The environment allowed one shade to flourish. There are also seen limitations to this process of adapting. Evolutionist will use this as so-called ‘proof’ for their belief. However, there is no such proof. The moth did not turn into another animal it just adapted to its environment. Genesis tells us that God created things after their ‘kind’. One ‘kind’ cannot evolve into another ‘kind’ but each ‘kind’ can most certainly adapt and change based on its environment.
The idea of evolution came to the forefront with the publication of the famous book by Charles Darwin. The following is a basic overview of the history of evolution: “Known around the world is the name of Charles Darwin and his history changing book “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection” subtitled “the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life” published in 1859. As a young man Charles Darwin was always interested in nature, but since his father saw no future in being a naturalist, he was sent to the University of Edinburgh to study medicine. At 16 he left Edinburgh without a degree and enrolled in Christ College at Cambridge University to become a clergyman, since most naturalists of the day were clergyman. He Received his B.A. degree in 1831 in theology and was recommended by the Reverend John Henslow, professor of botany, to Captain Robert Fitzroy of the HMS Beagle to participate in a surveying voyage around the world. Darwin was 22 years old when they sailed from England in December 1831 with the primary mission of charting sections of the South American coastline. While the crew charted the coastline, Darwin observed the distinctive nature of South America and was puzzled by the geographic distribution of species. At the Galapagos Islands Darwin came across several types of finches that although were very similar had apparent adaptations to their particular environments. By the time they had sailed from the Galapagos Darwin had read Lyell’s Principles of Geology, and began to doubt the Church’s position that the earth was only a few thousand years old. Later Darwin would theorize that these new forms were the result of the accumulation of adaptations to a different environment (Campbell 1990, 428-429). By the 1840’s Darwin had worked out the major features of the theory of natural selection as a mechanism for evolution but did not publish it immediately. Incidentally, Darwin spent most of his adult life in a semi-invalid condition whose cause, either organic or psychological, to this day remains unclear but he did nevertheless write extensively and pursue his research. The idea of natural selection as a source of new species was later to be co-discovered by Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913). Wallace, unlike Lyell and Darwin was raised in poverty and had no formal higher education at all, learning his knowledge of biology by extensive field experience in the Amazon and East Indies. He also held native people of the tropics in high regard in contrast to the frequently held views of racial superiority of Caucasians held at that time. At 21 Wallace was introduced to spiritualism and would later become a leader in the spiritism movement and write on the subject. Wallace wrote a two part article on the subject and later the definitive textbook, “Miracles and Modern Spiritualism” in 1876. (Morris 1989, 171). In 1855 Wallace published a paper on the origin of species which made Lyell and Darwin realize how close Wallace was to Darwin’s research. While Darwin was procrastinating on the publication of Origin, Wallace made a very curious contribution to science while in the Malayan Jungles. “I was then (February 1858) living at Ternate in the Muluccas, and was suffering from a rather severe attack of intermittent fever, which prostrated me every day during the cold and succeeding hot fits. During one of these fits, while again considering the problem of the origin of species, something lead me to think of Malthus’ Essay on Population…” (Morris 1989, 172 quoting Wallace – The Wonderful Century…) “Then it suddenly flashed upon me that this self-acting process would necessarily improve the race, because in every generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the superior would remain – that is, the fittest would survive. Then at once I seemed to see the whole effect of this…” (Morris 1989, 173 quoting Wallace – My Life) Further, “… the whole method of species modification became clear to me, and in the two hours of my fit I had thought out the main points of the theory. That same evening I sketched out the draft of a paper; and in the two succeeding evenings I wrote it out, and sent it by the next post to Mr. Darwin.” (Morris 1989, 173 quoting Wallace – The Wonderful Century) At that point Darwin was persuaded by his friends Lyell and Hooker to stop work on the “big book” and quickly publish an abstract, a shorter version instead. Lyell and Hooker then presented Darwin’s 1844 sketch and Wallace’s 1858 paper to the Linnean Society on July 1, 1858. Darwin’s “abstract” of 490 pages was published in 1859 as On the Origin… and the rest is history. (Taylor 1991, 130-131). Had it not been for Wallace to act as a stimulus, Darwin may not have written Origins and the course of history could have remained unchanged. Morris summarizes this best … “Herein was a marvelous thing! A theory that Darwin had been developing for twenty years, in the midst of a world center of science and with the help and encouragement of many scientific friends, was suddenly revealed in full to a self-educated spiritist, halfway around the world, alone on a tropical island in the throes of a two hour malarial fit. This is not the usual route to scientific discovery.” (Morris 1989, 173)” (www.bestbiblesceince.org) As you can see, the very means by which Darwin was inspired to publish his book is questionable. It is also known as you study the personal life of Darwin that he was very troubled by the death of his daughter. He also become very frustrated with the church and was angry at God. He never really denied the existence of God outright but eventually claimed to be an agnostic. The basic premise for writing his book was not for the sake of science but in order to diminish the influence of the church and to retaliate against God for all the trouble and strife in the world. It is also important to note that evolution was also based on very racist ideas. As matter of fact it is believed that Darwin and his companions used human remains as experiments. Consider the following: “In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s many in the scientific community viewed non-Caucasian races as evolutionary ancestors, human subspecies, and/or not quite human. As a result of this thinking humans of certain races were treated as laboratory specimens. The Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. holds the remains of 15,000 individuals of various races and it appears that 10,000 Australian Aborigines were shipped to the British museum in an attempt to determine if they were the “missing link”. Some of the leading evolutionists of the day, including anatomist Sir Richard Owen, anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith and Charles Darwin himself wanted samples. Museums were not only interested in bones, but of fresh samples and pickled Aboriginal brains, and good prices were being offered. Tragically, there is evidence that Australian Aborigines may have been killed for use as specimens. Consider these notes: “A death bed memoir from Korah Wills, who became mayor of Bowen, Queensland, in 1866, graphically describes how he killed and dismembered a local tribesman in 1865 to provide a scientific specimen”. Edward Ramsey, curator of the Australian Museum in Sydney (1874-1894) published a museum booklet that appeared to describe Aborigines as “Australian animals”. It also gave instructions on how to rob graves and plug bullet wounds in freshly killed “specimens”. He complained in the 1880s that a Queensland law to stop slaughtering Aborigines was affecting his supply. Amalie Dietrich, a German evolutionist (nicknamed the ‘Angel of Black Death’) came to Australia and asked that Aborigines be shot for specimens, so their skin could be stuffed and mounted. “Although evicted from at least one property, she shortly returned home with her specimens.” “A new South Wales missionary was a horrified witness to the slaughter by mounted police of a group of Aboriginal men, women and children. Forty-five heads were then boiled down and the best 10 skulls were packed off for overseas.” The above quotes and paraphrases are from: Creation ex nihilo, Vol 14, No. 2, March – May 1992, pg. 17. This perverse tale of human debauchery can only be regarded as another bad fruit of evolutionary thought. The racist ideas that stem from evolution is seen at its worst with what is known as the case of Ota Benga. In 1906 the crowds thronged the monkey house exhibit at the Bronx Zoo (New York Zoological Park). Here were man’s “evolutionary ancestors” – monkeys, chimpanzees, a gorilla named Dinah, an orangutan named Dohung and an African pygmy tribesman named Ota Benga. Ota Benga was brought from the Belgian Congo in 1904 by noted African explorer Samuel Verner along with other pygmies and displayed in an exhibit in the 1904 St. Louis world’s Fair. Ota Benga (or “Bi”, which means “friend” in his language) was born in 1881, had a height of 4 ft. 11in. and weighted 103 lbs. Although he was referred to as a boy he had been married twice. His first wife had been captured by a hostile tribe and his second wife died by a snake bite. After the St. Louis exhibit, Ota found himself at the Bronx Zoo which at that time was under the direction of Dr. William T. Hornaday, who was considered a bit eccentric. Hornaday believed animals had nearly human thoughts and personalities, and he could read the thoughts of zoo animals. He “apparently saw no difference between a wild beast and the little Black man” and insisted he was only offering an “intriguing exhibit”. (Jerry Bergman, Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol 16, No 1 Dec 1993-Feb 1994 p. 49, quoting Carl Sifakis, “Benga, Ota: The Zoo Man”, in American Eccentrics, Facts on File, New York, 1984, p. 253) The exhibit was immensely popular and controversial; the black community was outraged and some churchmen feared that it would convince people of Darwin’s theory of evolution. Under threat of legal action, Hornaday had Ota Benga leave his cage and circulate around the zoo in a white suit, but he returned to the monkey house to sleep. In time Ota Benga began to hate being the object of curiosity. “There were 40,000 visitors to the part on Sunday. Nearly every man, woman and child of this crowd made for the monkey house to see the start attraction in the park – the wild man from Africa. They chased him about the grounds add day, howling, jeering, and yelling. Some of them poked him in the ribs, others tripped him up, all laughed at him.” (Creation Ex Nihilo, quoting Phillip V. Bradford and Harvey Blume, “Ota Benga: The Pygmy in the Zoo”, St. Martins, 1992, p. 269, from the “New York Times” Sept. 18, 1906) At one point, he got hold of a knife and flourished it around the park, another time he produced a fracas after being denied a soda from the soda fountain. Finally, after fabricating a small bow and arrows and shooting at obnoxious park visitors he had to leave the park for good. After his park experience, several institutions tried to help him. He was placed in Virginia Theological Seminary and College but quit school to work in a tobacco factory. According to Hornaday (who probably had evolutionary racist views) “he did not possess the power of learning” (Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol 16, No. 1 Dec. 1993-Feb 1994, pp. 48-50). Growing homesick, hostile, and despondent Ota Benga borrowed a revolver, and shot himself in the heart, ending his life in 1916. As is clearly seen, evolution has a very questionable history and leads to the most disturbing beliefs and actions.
Now that we have seen a brief history of the idea of what evolution is really all about, let us now turn our attention to the fact that evolution is not a science but rather a religion. It needs to be understood that both evolution and creation are religious beliefs based on certain presuppositions. No matter how much scientific evidence you give the evolutionist, he will still deny the Bible and claim that evolution is a fact. The same is true for creationist. As creationist we begin with the presupposition that God exists and that He created the world. No scientific data will ever change the mind of a true believer. Consider this quote from Theodosius Dobzhansky, a famous evolutionist, “Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow.” Now, does this sound like science? Webster’s dictionary tells us that a religion is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. This is a great description of evolution. The idea that the origin of the world came from something that cannot be observed and the philosophy that man is just an animal that evolved from lower life forms and holding to that belief in a dogmatic way no matter the evidence shows is clearly a form of religion. It is a humanistic religion that focuses on man as the supreme being on the top of the so-called evolutionary chain. Evolution is an idea that must be accepted by faith as creation must be accepted by faith. However, belief in creation is different in the sense that we have the Bible that gives answers and the fact that basic scientific observations always substantiates the Bible. Yes, because we were not there to observe creation we must accept it by faith, but faith in creation is far more logical and scientifically substantiated than evolution could ever be. The point we need to understand is that the issue between creation and evolution is not a debate concerning science, however, it is a difference in philosophy, it’s a battle between conflicting world-views.
Unfortunately, the religion of evolution has infiltrated into the church and Christian colleges and seminaries across America. Not long after evolution became widely accepted, the church was challenged to give answers. Instead of standing strong on the authority of scripture, the church began to come up with ways to unite evolution with Genesis 1-2. Some of these attempts include the gap theory, day-age view, the day-gap-day view, framework hypothesis, and Adam as a metaphor. There have been sincere and godly men who have fallen prey to some of these ideas in order to somehow make peace with the evolutionist. These compromises leads to the destruction of our faith and the atheists know it. One atheist website says, “No Adam & Eve means no need of a Savior.” Leaders in the religion of evolution have an agenda to cause Christians to question the authority of the Bible. They know that if we begin to compromise on Genesis then our entire faith is destroyed. One of the prominent compromises on Genesis that is taught even in Christian colleges including by some professors at the school in which I studied in the so-called Gap Theory. The purpose behind the Gap Theory is to attempt to account for the geological record given by evolutionist concerning the age of the earth. However, just the very idea of such a theory brings the whole Bible into question. As matter of fact in Matthew 19:4-5, Jesus Himself mentioned that God made male and female at the beginning. We know that Adam lived on this earth roughly 6,000 years ago, therefore if they were created at the beginning then how could we say the earth is millions of years old? Mark 10:6 says, “At the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.” Why would Jesus say that if Adam and Eve were not created at the beginning and the earth is really millions of years old? Since the Gap Theory is one of the most prominent theories accepted by many Christians it is important that we include the following article from the 1987 edition of creation magazine by Henry Morris:
‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth’ (Genesis 1:1).
‘And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.’ (Genesis 1:2). Many people assume there is a great gap in time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Most of these do this to accommodate the geological age system of billions of years of supposed earth history in the Genesis record of creation. The idea is something like this: billions of years ago God created the spacemass-time universe. Then the geological ages took place over billions of years of earth history. The different forms of life developed that are now preserved in the fossil record. These life-forms represent those ages – the invertebrates of the Cambrian Period, the dinosaurs of the Cretaceous Period … finally the mammals, birds and ‘ape-men’ of the Tertiary Period – just before the recent epoch. Then the idea is that, at the end of these geological ages, a great cataclysm took place on earth, with Satan having rebelled in heaven and many of the angels following him in that rebellion. God, therefore, cast him to the earth, and the earth underwent a great cataclysm, leaving it finally without form and void, and with darkness on the face of the deep, as described in Genesis 1:2. Subsequently, according to this idea—usually known as the ‘gap’ theory—God then re-created or reconstituted the earth in the six literal days of creation recorded in the first chapter of Genesis. The argument for this theory makes verse two read, ‘The earth became without form and void’ (some would render it ‘The earth became waste and desolate’), as though it had previously been a beautiful world. But now, because of the cataclysm, it was a devastated remnant of a world, so that there was a change of condition. It became without form and void.

‘Was’ Means ‘Was’
A significant problem with this idea is that the Hebrew word for ‘was’ really should be translated ‘was’. It should not be translated ‘became’. It is the Hebrew verb of being, hayah, and normally it is simply translated ‘was’. In all the standard translations of the Old Testament, that is the way this verse is rendered. On some occasions, in an unusual situation if the context requires it, the word can be translated ‘became’. There are some instances like that in the Old Testament. By far the tremendous majority of times, however, when the verb is used, it is simply translated ‘was’. In the absence of any indication in the immediate context that it should be rendered by a change of state, where it became something which it wasn’t, one would normally assume it was simply a declarative statement describing how the situation existed at the time. The earth was, in response to God’s creative fiat, initially without form and void. Some people use Isaiah 45:18 as an argument for the use of ‘became’ in Genesis 1:2. In this verse, Isaiah says that God created the earth not in vain. He formed it to be inhabited. The word ‘in vain’ is the same as tohu; that is, the same word translated ‘without form’ in Genesis 1:2. So ‘gap’ theorists say that since God did not create it that way, it must have become that way. But again, the context is significant. In Isaiah, the context requires the use of the translation ‘in vain’. That is, God did not create the earth without a purpose; He created it to be inhabited. Genesis 1 tells us then how He brought form to the unformed earth and inhabitants to the empty earth. It was not really finished until He said so at the end of the six days of creation. The word tohu is actually translated 10 different ways in about 20 occurrences in the Old Testament. Isaiah 45:19 has the same word, and there it has to be translated ‘vainly’ or ‘in vain’. It is also proper to translate it that way in Isaiah 45:18. It depends on the context as to how it is to be precisely translated. In Genesis 1:2 the context simply indicates the earth had no structure as yet. It was unformed; it was not even spherical at that point, but was comprised of only the basic elements of earth material.
Furthermore, it is important to note that the verse begins with the conjunction, ‘and’ (Hebrew waw), and this same conjunction introduces every single verse of the first chapter of Genesis, so there is a sequence of actions implied. There was this happening, and then this happened, and then this happened, and then this . . . each following directly upon the other. When it said that God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void, the implication is that this was immediately following the creation. Another argument of those who advocate the ‘gap’ theory is that the word ‘darkness’ suggests that something is wrong with the creation. But Isaiah 45:7 says that God created the darkness. In order for there to be day and night, which was necessary for the further activity of God and man upon the earth, there must be day and night. So God actually had to create darkness. Thus there is nothing implicitly wrong with it being dark. God created it that way. Darkness later came to represent, in some contexts, a symbol of evil—as opposed to light—since ‘God is light and in Him is no darkness at all’ (1 John 1:5). But in the context here there is no evil connotation suggested. On the other hand, there are many overwhelming difficulties with the ‘gap’ theory, and we really should not accept this as the interpretation of Genesis 1:2. The idea that the geological ages took place in between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 is precluded by the plain biblical statement in the Ten Commandments, where God said, ‘In six days, the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is’ (Exodus 20:11). That is, He was telling man that he must work six days and rest one day because God worked six days and rested one day. The context goes on to say that everything in heaven and earth and in the sea was made in six days. There could have been nothing left over that was not made during the six days. The ‘gap’ theory, on the other hand, would require that only the surface of the earth was reconstituted in the six days. The earth’s core, the basic structure, the great fossil beds containing the remnants of the dinosaurs, and so on, all of this would predate the six days of Creation. But God says specifically that everything in the earth and in the heavens and in the sea was made in the six days.
Death Before Sin?
Theologically, there is also a very grave difficulty with the ‘gap’ theory. The Bible says there was no sin or death until man brought them into the world. According to the ‘gap’ theory, however, there had already been billions of years of suffering and death in the world, represented by the fossils and the sedimentary rocks of the earth’s crust, which are supposed now to identify the geological ages. According to the ‘gap’ theory, at the end of the geological ages Satan sinned and was cast to the earth and then there was a great cataclysm, so that the geological ages with billions of years of suffering and death took place before Satan sinned and certainly before man sinned. The Bible, on the other hand, says specifically that ‘by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin’ (Romans 5:12), so that there was no death in the world until man brought sin into it. The ‘gap’ theory would require billions of years of suffering in the world before man or even Satan had sinned, and that means that God Himself would be directly responsible for sin in the world. God could not be the author of sin. So the ‘gap’ theory is precluded theologically.
Scientifically, it won’t work either, because the whole essence of the geological age system, which some people try to accommodate by the ‘gap’ theory, is based on what geologists call ‘uniformitarianism’ that is, the continuity of processes in the ancient world with those in the modern world. The very structure of the geological age system is based on the assumption that present rates and processes are the same as those that took place in the past. There is no room for a world-wide cataclysm interrupting those processes in the system of the geological ages. That is why no geologist would ever accept the ‘gap’ theory. In order to have a world-wide cataclysm that would destroy all the pre-cataclysm mountains and cast them into the sea, so that there was the deep everywhere, and then blow billions of tons of debris up into the sky so that there was darkness over the deep everywhere, as Genesis 1:2 describes it, it would have to be a world-wide nuclear explosion, or volcanic explosion, or something which would literally disintegrate the crust of the earth where the fossils and the sedimentary rocks are that identify the geological ages. So the ‘gap’ theory would destroy the evidence for the geological ages in order to accommodate them! It is a self-negating theory scientifically; it creates overwhelming scientific problems. No geologist would ever accept the ‘gap’ theory. Therefore, we have to reject the ‘gap’ theory as an interpretation of Genesis 1:2. We can be confident that a simple and straightforward, literal interpretation of the biblical record will satisfy all the real facts of geology.
Through careful examination of scripture I totally agree with Henry Morris’ explanation. We need to understand that when you attempt to unite the Bible with the ideas proposed by the religion of evolution, we bring the entire Bible into question. This is exactly what Satan did in Genesis three in his temptation of Eve. He began by questioning God’s Word. When we question God’s Word in one area we must then question the whole thing. This compromise amongst Christian circles concerning Genesis has grown to encompasses many great and well-known Christian leaders of our day. Consider some of the following quotes:

“From a superficial reading of Genesis 1, the impression would seem to be that the entire creative process took place in six twenty-four hour days. If this was the true intent of the Hebrew author…this seems to run counter to modern scientific research, which indicates that the planet earth was created several billion years ago.” – Dr. Gleason Archer (O.T. Professor)
It needs to be understood here that Dr. Archer is assuming the scientific research he refers to is correct. He does not realize that the scientific research may very well be based on faulty data and coming from a secular and humanistic world-view. As believers we must not stray from the fact that the Bible is the final authority in all matters, including science.
“At first reading the creation account seems to indicate that these six days of creation activity were twenty-four hours each. We conclude, however, that ultimately, responsible geology must determine the length of the Genesis days.” – Dr. Gordon Lewis (Theology Professor)
Wow! Geology is the authority? We look to geologist for the ultimate answers instead of the Bible? This is absurd. A professor of theology should know better! The list goes on of men who have compromised on Genesis: Norman Geisler, C. John Collins, John Piper, Kenneth Matthews, among many others. All of these men and other like-minded fellows are basically teaching the church that geology and science is the final authority even above scripture. God forbid! This compromise has taken a very bad turn in recent days. William Dembski, a professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary has gone to the extreme of compromising on Adam and Eve. In his book End of Christianity he writes:
“For the theodicy I am proposing to be compatible with evolution, God must not merely introduce existing human-like beings from outside the Garden. In addition, when they enter the Garden, God must transform their consciousness so that they become rational moral agents made in God’s image. Any evils humans experience outside the garden before God breathes into them the breath of life would be experienced as natural evils in the same way animals experience them. The pain would be real, but it would not be experienced as divine justice in response to willful rebellion. Moreover, once God breathes the breath of life into them, we may assume that the first humans experienced an amnesia of their former animal life: Operating on a higher plane of consciousness once infused with the breath of life, they would transcend the lower plane of animal consciousness on which they had previously operated-though, after the fall, they might be tempted to resort to that lower consciousness.”
This is the kind of garbage that is being taught in some Christian colleges and seminaries. This is what men being trained to be pastors are learning from their professors. May God help us! Notice this encouraging article by John MacArthur: Now, because the Bible is so clear about this in Genesis 1, and then giving us an even further and more detailed look at this creation, rehearsing its elements in a broader way in chapter 2, you face a test at the very outset of the Bible. You’re not going to get past the first verses of the Bible, you’re not going to get past the first verse in the Bible, the first chapter in the Bible, the first two chapters in the Bible without facing a test. And the test is this, do you believe the Scripture? Do you believe the Scripture? That is the test. No one gets past the opening verses of the Bible without having to face the test of whether or not that person believes the Bible to be the authoritative Word of God. Do you submit to Scripture? Genesis 1 is your first test…
Well there are a lot of people who believe that and there are a mass of people who call themselves Christians who believe that Genesis is an inadequate presentation of what happened and we have to marry it with scientific discovery in order to get to the truth. Let me help you, folks, let me help you. Get past that notion and you will free yourself from needless doubts and endless confusion. Get past the idea that science, listen, makes any contribution to an understanding of creation. It makes none. Now this may shock you. There is no such thing as the science of creation. There is no such thing. It does not exist. Why? Because there is no scientific way to explain creation… I would like to suggest a sort of basic test for any Christian ministry that you might be drawn toward, either to participate with them, to support them in some way. I would suggest that you ask any ministry, any so-called Christian ministry, especially a Christian college, Christian seminary that you’re thinking about going to, or sending your friends or your children to, or church that you might attend, one question. And here is the first question you should ask them. Write it in a letter and send it to them next time some ministry solicits money from you. “Do you believe completely in the literal interpretation of Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2?” Ask them that. There are 106 Christian colleges in what is called “The Christian College Coalition.” Five would say yes to that. A hundred and one would say no. Just exactly does Genesis 1 and 2 mean then if it doesn’t mean what it says which even a child can understand, then how are we to know what it means? And at what point can we trust anything that the Bible says? The answer to the question, “What is your view of Genesis 1 and 2?” will reveal the attitude of any organization, any ministry toward Scripture. And if they believe that Scripture is inerrant and authoritative and complete, you’ll get the right answer. If you get the wrong answer, then they have a weak view of Scripture. And if they reject Genesis 1 and 2, then you can ask them the other question that I posed a little while ago, “Just exactly where do you start believing the Bible?” I could not agree more with MacArthur. The issue between evolution and creation is a matter of what you believe concerning the Bible. There is no way that you can claim to have a high view of scripture and compromise on Genesis. You either believe the whole Bible or none of it.
A final encouragement for believers is stay faithful. There are constant attacks that will continue until Jesus comes. We cannot waver from scripture as the final authority in all matters. It is vitally important that we educate ourselves in the issues attacking the church today especially in this area that is so foundational to our faith. As the scripture says, “Be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord for as much as ye know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s