Creation evangelism that led people back to Christ

According to Todd Strandberg:

Because salvation is the most important issue for us to be spending our time and energy on, all Christian endeavors need to be productive in the area of winning people for the Kingdom of God. When it comes to soul winning, arguing about creationism simply does not carry any weight…

The Church has a proven history of using faith to triumph over science. When Christians switched to battling with the weapon of science, they began suffering one defeat after another.

With faith being given out freely to all who seek truth, Christians have no need to be in the business of mixing science with religion. With prayer, we have the ability to supernaturally win over even the most stubborn evolutionists. I think creationism is harmful because it distracts from what is clearly a better way to win people to the Kingdom of God.

It’s bearing false witness to claim that “creationism simply does not carry any weight” in soul winning.

What, so God’s Word in Genesis is evangelistic filler? No way—Genesis can be the hit single—as told by Ken Ham:

This is why we at Answers in Genesis [AiG] do what we do. We want to equip the church to stand on the authority of God’s Word from the very beginning and provide solid answers for the skeptical questions of this age..

And, praise the Lord, we often hear from people who have had their lives forever changed because God brought AiG resources into their lives. Recently I shared the story of a gentleman from the Netherlands who was seriously doubting the Christian faith. He had received teaching that compromised Genesis with millions of years and evolution, and he ended up leaving Christianity altogether. But, eventually, he found our website and was able to get solid, uncompromising answers to the questions that he had, and his faith in God and in His Word was restored…People all over the world like him are why we do what we do!

Quote sources

  1. Strandberg, T. (n.d.) Evolutionism vs. Creationism: A Pointless Debate. Rapture Ready. Available Last accessed 13th Sep 2015.
  2. Ham, K. (2015). Why We Do What We Do. Answers in Genesis. Available Last accessed 13th Sep 2015.

Capital punishment and the image of God

In 1978, porn publisher Larry Flynt was shot by the serial killer Joseph Franklin. Flynt survived, but was paralysed from the waist down. Decades later, Franklin was executed for his serial killings, but not before Flynt said:

I do not want to… see him die…

As I see it, the sole motivating factor behind the death penalty is vengeance, not justice, and I firmly believe that a government that forbids killing among its citizens should not be in the business of killing people itself.

But that’s a warped and subjective view of justice.

Here’s a better and transcendent view of justice:

The first line of defense for human life is religious. Different religions have differing ideas about human life, from a contempt for it to a misplaced aversion for it. The Biblical perspective is that man’s life has value, not because of man nor what he is, but because man’s image reflects God, and God protects His image bearer. We can take a life on God’s terms, not our own…

To prize life over justice is a view that in time can forfeit life together with justice.

Quotes sources

  1. Flynt, L. cited in Anon. (2013). Larry Flynt: Don’t execute man who shot me. BBC News. Available Last accessed 13th Sep 2015.
  2. Rushdoony, R.J. (1999). The Institutes of Biblical Law, Volume Three: The Intent of the Law. Ross House Books, Vallecito, pp. 70-71

Homeschoolers’ maturity: let your light shine before others

The other night as I was an audience member for a homeschool theater production of the musical Annie, I was once again struck by how unique Christian homeschooling is as a cultural trend…

Guests who are not accustomed to homeschooling circles almost always remark on how well-behaved and orderly the children are, and how readily they take direction and show respect for those in authority. If you, like me, are used to such things, it doesn’t seem like such a big deal.

One woman, who had been a teacher in public schools and Sunday schools for over forty years, was dumbfounded that eighty plus children under the direction of about five to seven moms could be so cooperative.

Quote source

Schwartz, A. (2008). The Homeschool Life: Discovering God’s Way to Family-Based Education [ebook]. Chalcedon/Ross House Books, Vallecito. Location 273-80

Reasons not to compromise with theological compromisers

According to William Loader:

We recognise these pre-scientific accounts [in the book of Genesis] as attempts to explain why things are the way they are. With them belong also the explanations of why people speak different languages (Babel) and where rainbows come from (Noah and the flood).

In the light of these realities it is important to exercise caution in appealing both to creation and the fall. The Paper [The Uniting Church’s Discussion Paper on Marriage] avoids the dangers by its brief definitions. Concretely, this means that we can talk of creation only in the light of what we now know about such matters as the age of creation (not 6000 but 13.5 billion years) and the formation/creation of the human species through millions of years of evolutionary development, not in an instant.

Sin remains sin, but the notion that there was once a perfect creation and an Adam and Eve is no longer plausible in a literal sense.

But Ken Ham does an able job of exposing Loader’s premises:

One of the problems with compromise in one area of Scripture is where do you stop compromising? If Christians accept the idea of human evolution, then why not accept the idea that our sinful tendencies are really just evolved tendencies?

But this completely changes the Bible’s definition of sin and why we sin and face the penalty of death for our sin, “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12). A belief in evolution strikes right at the heart of the gospel!

(To be clear: there are Christians who believe in evolution and their salvation is not in doubt if they have placed their faith in Christ—but their compromised position regarding Genesis does undermine the authority of God’s Word.)

Quote sources

  1. Loader, W. (n.d.) Comments on the Uniting Church Discussion Paper on Marriage. Available Last accessed 5th Sep 2015.
  2. Ham, K. (2015). Adultery—Justified by Evolution? Available Last accessed 5th Sep 2015.

Eels, their prey, and evolutionists all confused

The evolutionist Sam M believed that electric eels got their electrical stunning abilities through evolution. He said:

The earlier stages of the electric eel would not have paralyzed their prey, but would they have simply confused it? If the eel is hunting prey that is used to using its own electrical field to help navigate, and the eel’s minor charge is enough to throw that off, that could be enough of a benefit the allow the eel to catch prey more often compared to the eels whose charge did not affect the navigation of their prey.

It’s a very small benefit, of course, but small benefits lead to large changes when given millions of years. If their environment is as such that having the ability to give an electrical discharge, regardless of how small, benefits the species, then one would expect that this would carry on for future generations. As this continued, those who were born with gradually stronger voltages, therefore having a somewhat greater effect on prey, would again be more likely to catch prey, defend themselves, and breed.

Remember that there are ways to look at any one species and see rational ways that they could have evolved over time.

Does this “rational way” of speculation hold water? Gavin B replied with:

Sam M says, “the earlier stages of the electric eel would not have paralyzed their prey, but would they have simply confused it?” Yet Dominic [Statham] already argued that they [eels] had to produce protective mechanisms at the same time as they developed their deadly electric generation ability, to protect them from paralyzing themselves.

So if they were only able to confuse their prey, this doesn’t resolve the issue of having to develop a protective mechanism at the same time, or they would have confused themselves. Then you would have a confused eel and a confused fish at the same time.

I doubt whether a confused eel could catch a confused fish.

Quote sources

Statham, D. (2014). Stunning and stealthy: the amazing electric eel [article comments]. Creation Ministries International. Available Last accessed 13th Sep 2015.

The moneymaking trope held by evolutionists

According to RationalWiki:

However, the modern-day conception of this dispute [science vs. religion/creationism] is mostly due to creationists framing it as a question of evolution theory versus Christianity, the better to pry cash out of the faithful of the world.

RationalWiki’s utterance reminded me of this:

You might be a fundamentalist atheist if:

303. You believe any person who writes a book critical of Christianity is doing it for “education” purposes. Conversely, you believe that any person who writes a book defending Christianity is “just in it to make money.”

Quote sources

  1. RationalWiki (2015). 12 Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid. Available Last accessed 13th Sep 2015.
  2. GakuesiDon (n.d.). You Might be a Fundamentalist Atheist if…Available Last accessed 13th Sep 2015

When evolutionists believe in evolution anyway

On Nov 27, 2007, in front of a packed house, CMI’s Dr. Robert Carter [a Christian] debated Mr. Rick Pierson [an evolutionist] in Dothan, Alabama, on the subject “Do Humans Have an Evolutionary Origin?”…

Pierson started by listing what he considered the eight best evidences for human evolutionary origins…His second argument was that of the reputed fusion of two ancestral chimp chromosomes to produce human chromosome 2…

Carter went on to discuss the fusion hypothesis for the origin of human chromosome 2. There is a diversity of opinion within the creationist community about whether or not it actually happened, yet it proves nothing for the evolutionist.

They claim common descent because one of our chromosomes looks like two of the ape chromosomes. But they would also claim common descent if we had the exact same number of chromosomes.

Quote source

Creation Ministries International (2009). The Great Dothan Debate
Do Humans Have an Evolutionary Origin?
 Available Last accessed 5th Sep 2015.