Rock of Ages or Ages of Rocks

Posted by Worldview Warriors On Thursday, February 21, 2019 2 comments

by Steve Risner

Last week, I began a series in response to a set of 10 questions an old earth creationist (possibly a theistic evolutionist) named Michael Roberts wanted to ask young earth creationists (what is appropriately referred to as a Biblical creationist). I was happy to find this set of 10 questions to help him on his path to understanding the Word of God and the Truth found in it. You can find that writing here, but I will be directly quoting his questions in these writings if you don't want to read ahead.

I find it necessary to get into the discussion here with this non-Biblical creationist because he appears to be not very knowledgeable on the subject of creation—especially from a Biblical stance rather than a stance based on the humanist origins myth. I know this because he's posted things in groups online that are exceptionally weak strawman arguments against Biblical creation, including nonsensical things like this picture of the Ark:

Of course, no creationist that I know thinks this is what happened and if he knew anything at all about what he's rejecting, he'd know how foolish it makes him look to suggest such a thing. My experience with old earth creationists and theistic evolutionists is that most, if not all, are extremely ignorant on what the Bible actually says about creation and, therefore, what Biblical creationists believe. They create numerous strawmen so they can knock them down, appearing to vindicate the erroneous teachings of deep time and/or evolution. Michael Roberts is no different. Some will often claim that they were once “young earthers” and therefore know all the ins and outs, but if that's true, they had no idea what the idea was they have since rejected. I feel many of them do know what the case for Biblical creation is, but they intentionally distort it in their presentations on origins so they can make it look foolish. This is truly the worst type of error—an intentional one. It is deception and is not the way a believer should conduct themselves. I don't know which Mr. Roberts is, or perhaps he's both. However, I've chosen to give him the benefit of the doubt and rather than assume he's lying, I've decided he must just not know what he's talking about. But let's look at his first question. It is, in fact, an area we can agree on and it's a good place to start.

Can we start by agreeing that the Gospel is more about the Rock of Ages than the ages of rocks?

Sure thing! The good news of Jesus Christ is that death has been defeated and sin no longer has us as slaves because of what the Son has done. This is what life in the Garden of Eden was like at the beginning and we're told it will return to this in the future. However, the Gospel message is exclusively the result of the creation, fall, and curse. What are we to be saved from? The sin nature which is part of every human heart as a result of the fall of Adam and Eve. Why? Because they rebelled against God who gave them instructions on how He wanted them to live. They had one rule and they broke it. They passed this on to us. Hence, all of creation is cursed. Work would be harder. Child birth for women would be harder. The ground was cursed. Death would result eventually. And why do we care what God says about all this? Because He's the Creator—He's the one who has a say in it. Who else can demand a standard of living but the one who created us and fashioned each of us? The Gospel hangs on whether or not Genesis is true. If Adam isn't a real man and was not “from the beginning,” then Jesus need not be real either. You see, one is called the first Adam while the other is called the last Adam. In the first, we all die. In the last, we all can live. If Genesis is true, then we have a reason for a Savior, who was actually mentioned in the Genesis account.

In short, the Rock of Ages rests comfortably on a foundation of Genesis from the Biblical perspective. From the old earth and theistic evolution perspective, it's more difficult to make sense of it. This is why it's easier to find old earth creationists and even more so theistic evolutionists who don't believe Christ is the only Way but simply a way to the Father. They join Oprah Winfrey in espousing Christianity as their faith but allow for others to have their own truth as well. I'm not saying Roberts is like this. But to be sure we understand what I'm saying: There are many great theologians and scientists and wonderful Christian people who believe in deep time, whether that means old earth creation in one of its various forms or theistic evolutionism. However, straying from the foundation of the solid and easily understood message of creation, sin, the fall and curse, the Flood, and the Tower of Babel means it's that much easier to deny other major doctrines as well. This is no slippery slope fallacy but simply my observation and that of many others.

There are people who repeatedly say things like this question from Michael Roberts—isn't the important thing Jesus? But these people will also repeatedly attack Biblical creationists and the Bible in general while they hold hands with atheists and other God-hating individuals, using their ideas and beliefs to attack “fellow Christians.” This must stop! My zeal for this topic stems from my desire to show people the Truth of Jesus Christ. I see young people being drawn away from the faith because they accept the unscientific premise that we can date the age of the earth or rocks or the universe, and these dates conflict with what the Bible very clearly teaches. So, my desire is out of love for people that they come to find Jesus Christ and know Him deeply as Creator, Lawgiver, and Savior/Redeemer as well as the soon coming King. They need to know they can trust His Word. But the concern from many (I'm sure not all) old earth creationists and theistic evolutionists appears to be based on arrogance and the desire to win a debate. They don't mock and ridicule Biblical creationists because we don't believe God's Word; they mock us and claim we're ignorant or stupid or gullible because we see past the facade of deep time and all that comes with it. They rail on us because we disagree with them and their “science.” It masquerades as science when it's not. We express concern for the souls of the lost while they express anger for us not agreeing with the humanist origins myth.

Yes, the Gospel Truth is far more important than each of the details of it—but they all must be in place for the Gospel to even make sense. We need a Savior because man fell away 6000 years ago, probably shortly after the creation. God created. Man sinned. There were consequences for this rebellion and we're still dealing with that today. Jesus Christ is the answer in all this! And we're stuck with this very simple question: are we going to believe God Almighty or not? There is literally no indication from Genesis that it should be read as anything but a historical narrative. And if the beginning is something other than actual history, when does that stop? There is no indication in the text that something changes, so really it's either all true or it’s all just some myth that doesn't have any truth to it. Which is it? I prefer to let the context tell me. That context is perfectly in line with reading it as history, and the rest of Scripture confirms this. In short, the old earth creationist and theistic evolutionist have no Biblical basis for their beliefs on origins at all—none. And the Gospel and the Rock of Ages stands firmly on a literal reading of Genesis. Mr. Roberts claims that “The center of the Gospel is the crucified and risen Christ, and everything in the Old Testament leads up to that,” but he doesn't seem to believe that as he's thrown out the core of the Old Testament and its foundations.

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.


ashleyhr said...

''Of course, no creationist that I know thinks this is what happened and if he knew anything at all about what he's rejecting, he'd know how foolish it makes him look to suggest such a thing.''

Do YECs believe penguins lived in Iraq before Noah's Flood (as I've just speculated to Michael Roberts)? How could they survive there?

Steve Risner said...

Good day Ashley,
No. Creationists don't think that, so much. Don't you feel that understanding that which you've decided is wrong would be a great way to go? You (and Roberts) both have major problems with understanding Biblical creationism (which is a pretty big deal in my opinion since it's taken directly from God's Word) but you've rejected it. Seems like a poor choice to me.