Blog

by Steve Risner

[This blog post is part of a series. The previous one is here, and the next one is here.]

Last week we began to look at a blog post by Tyler Francke called, “How the flap over Gungor shows everything that’s wrong with Ken Ham’s theology.” This will nearly conclude this response. We are, however, hip deep in a much larger series concerning the blog post, “Ten Theological Questions No Young-earth Creationist Can Answer.” You can find the first few entries in this series by going here, here, here, here, and here. Last week we laid the groundwork so you know what we’re talking about. This week, we’ll continue this piece so we can move on, hopefully, to something from a theistic evolutionist that has some meat in it. Let’s get this done… Tyler says some things that are just not what I would expect to hear from a believer in this blog post. “I agree with Gungor; the God of Genesis 6-9 doesn’t really sound like God to me.” I don’t know what to say to that. Who does it sound like if not the God of the Bible? Why are these accounts recorded in God’s Word for us? Why are those mentioned in these accounts included in the genealogies in the Bible—especially in the lineage of Jesus? Why does Paul refer to these people as though they are historical characters? Tyler claims Ken Ham’s blog demonstrates bad theology. I’m not sure what Tyler’s theology is. The gymnastics that it seems a theistic evolutionist has to manage in order to remotely resemble a logical and consistent flow to Scripture is enough to blow my mind. I can’t figure out where the foundation for his faith sits or for the Gospel or even the need for the Gospel without Genesis being true. We’ll cover that in more detail next week. How can he criticize Ham for “bad theology” when Tyler’s seems so random and fabricated? I feel like he wants to be able to decide what he accepts from the Bible and what he does not based on how he feels about it. That’s not really how it works.

Tyler makes the claim that all Christians fail to read the Bible in a “natural” sense, as Ken Ham suggests. I’m not sure what he means here. The “natural” reading of Scripture simply means we read it as it seems intended by the context and writing style. How else would one suggest we read it? Tyler chooses to read the Bible through the lens of the currently popular, ever-changing opinion of the culture at hand. For me, that is exactly backwards. The Word of God is unchanging. It surpasses all time and is as relevant today as it was when it was penned. It’s the set of spectacles we should view our culture through as well as the world around us.

After this, he makes a few statements concerning science and interpreting it, which I disagree with. That’s okay. We can disagree and I don’t have to act like he’s a hateful, blasphemous divider because of it. I’m okay with it. But after this, he states that Genesis should be read like other parts of the Bible that “don’t make sense if we take them literally.” In his list of Biblical texts that don’t make sense, we find nearly all of it—Genesis, the prophets, Psalms, Proverbs, Revelation, and some of the words of Christ. He claims parables fit in this list. Funny, really. Parables actually do make sense when you read them as they’re intended—as stories with a point. We know which portions of Jesus’ teachings are parables and which are not by the context. That’s exactly the point. We don’t reject parables or poetry because of a differing opinion that emerged in today’s world of humanism. I’m not sure what portions of the Bible Tyler actually holds “in high regard” since none of it seems to be literal or true (if it’s written like history but it didn’t happen, it’s actually not true, right, and therefore dishonest). This reduces the Bible to a bunch of stories for teaching, much like any other storybook out there—fables, nursery rhymes, and other religious texts are just that. The Bible is far more to me. Truly, it teaches us much. But it’s beyond a teaching tool.

Tyler says, “They [the creation and Flood accounts] convey deep and important, even foundational, theological truths about God, man and the relationship between the two, and reading them as history or a kind of parable doesn’t change that at all.” Yet, he also states, “…the God of Genesis 6-9 doesn’t really sound like God to me.” What truths are found in these accounts if they don’t mean exactly what they say? This sort of bi-polar theology where we say one thing and immediately say the opposite and conclude they are both true baffles me. Then he says that Ham’s position is like saying you don’t take God at His Word if you don’t take the parable of the prodigal son literally. The struggle for me in remaining respectful and calm is genuine. He should read some of his own comments on this, I think. He’s doing exactly what he claims Ken Ham is doing. This claim about parables isn’t true at all and I feel he knows this. He must because he’s already referenced Ken Ham’s “natural reading” of Scripture which answers his concerns. He’s making yet another strawman so he can knock it down. Frankly, I don’t have time for that sort of thing. If only we could find someone who will actually represent Biblical creationism when they argue against it. All we find are bogus, made up, strawman arguments. This is so important that I would think people, especially those who profess to be believers, would try to understand the position before they reject it.

We find the saying, “Don’t confuse me with the facts. I’ve already made up my mind” to be so true in this debate. They’ve decided prior to viewing any evidence from the Biblical stance that it’s foolish and that their secular version of origins is the truth. That’s the bottom line—reject the Biblical view not because of anything found in the Bible, but because a secular culture has decided to have their own version of the story. This version contradicts the account in the Bible, so we must choose which we will believe. Melding the two is what we call compromise. The Bible doesn’t speak highly of those types of actions. It does say in Psalm 119, “Joyful are people of integrity, who follow the instructions of the LORD. Joyful are those who obey His laws and search for Him with all their hearts. They do not compromise with evil, and they walk only in His paths. You have charged us to keep Your commandments carefully.” You can also see strong warnings in Deuteronomy 4:2 and Psalm 119:128. The Word tells us we should make sure “…that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” That’s Colossians 2:8. Does this not sound exactly like a warning against theistic evolution?

We all have a choice to make. One option is the long-held belief in the Word of God and its accuracy. The other option is man’s recent and currently popular but ever-changing position. Joshua’s words were powerful when he said, “But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD” (Joshua 24:15). The choice, for me, was very easy. After hundreds of hours of science classes in high school, college, and graduate school, I could find no reason to compromise with humanism. Once you realize it is just a philosophy, it’s rather easy to reject it. The Bible stands as the authority on origins for me, and it is the filter by which I interpret the world around me. What do you say?

Next week we will finish up this series on this particular blog post by Tyler. I hope you’ve gleaned something from this so far. We’ll focus most of our attention on Tyler’s statements concerning the ministry of Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis in general. One of the largest errors we find in his philosophy is he doesn’t feel there is a connection between creation and the Gospel. This, unfortunately, is an enormous error. We’ll develop that more next week.

This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration.  All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved.  Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.