Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?" 2 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3 but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" 4 But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
Behold, another "evangelical Christian apologist" caves to error:
Excerpts:
Science vs. Scripture: An Open Response to Dr. John Ankerberg
by Institute for Creation Research
Of course, the Institute for Creation Research is all for science. As the founder of the modern creation science movement (many decades ago), ICR has led the way in conducting the most comprehensive and professional research within the various disciplines of science, but with one very important component: science never trumps Scripture. God’s Word is the ultimate interpreter of all things, even in the realm of science.
This is not to say that the Bible was written as a science textbook. But it does mean that God does not lie, nor has He communicated in a way that confuses His people. However, the way some are beginning to “interpret” Scripture today suggests they believe that God did not speak plainly and only “qualified” Ph.D.’s know the real secret behind God’s straightforward writing.
At the very start of the Ankerberg letter is his connection between “the latest scientific evidence” and the ministry of evangelism, with the statement that believers can now “use this evidence to lead your non-Christian friends to believe God exists and is the Creator of everything.” What you are not told in the first two pages of his appeal is that Dr. Ankerberg has publicly changed his view about how God’s creatorship can be proven.
While admitting he still holds to his belief that God is Creator—and there is no reason to believe that he denies this fact—he is now saying that “science” has finally proven how God created the heavens and the earth. In fact, he states that one man has not only discovered this, but also has made 90 startling scientific predictions that will be revealed in the new Ankerberg television series. Ankerberg concludes, “Unfortunately, many Christians do not know this evidence and can’t share the good news about God and creation with their friends.”
So just how did Christians evangelize for the previous 2,000 years without this “new” evidence? Did Christians really not know how to properly share the Good News without these startling new scientific discoveries?
Dr. Ankerberg rightly laments that “more students at our universities” don’t believe in God. But he claims science is the key to correcting this travesty. And the proper understanding of science in his view—which is the hybrid creation theory called day-age creation—will solve this dilemma in Christian ministry.
However, Romans 1 clearly states that mankind possesses a sinful predisposition to reject God’s many infallible proofs (Acts 1:3). Rejecting these proofs leaves man “without excuse” (Romans 1:20). It is not because the evidence has not been communicated well to unbelieving minds. Jesus states that many would not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead (Luke 16:31).
However, Dr. Ankerberg suggests that evangelism is actually hindered by those who believe and teach that God created the world in six 24-hour days and that the earth is around 6,000 years old. He attacks the many-decades ministry of ICR leaders Dr. John Morris and Dr. Duane Gish because of their uncompromising stance on the 24-hour days God used to create the world. He states, “At the time I thought, it’s going to be difficult to defend the young earth position if no scientist has been persuaded by the scientific evidence to accept it.”
If our goal is ultimately to please or placate modern scientists or theologians, what divine miracle will Dr. Ankerberg suggest we do away with next?
The bottom line is that anyone—be it scientist, scholar, or TV personality—must come to Christ by faith, not by sight.
Science is not God’s means to salvation; the cross is. Science, if used in a manner that does not disparage the Word of God, can be used to help some people take notice of God, the Creator. But science is only one of a myriad methods God uses to attract men and women and children to Himself.
Dr. Ankerberg urges his followers—with some trepidation—to abandon their traditional heartfelt beliefs in Genesis in order to adopt his new understanding of science and the Bible:
I realize that some of you reading this letter believe with all of your heart that the Bible teaches God created the heavens and the earth approximately 6,000 years ago. You believe the only correct literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 teaches God created in six 24-hour days. Therefore, if anyone suggests otherwise, they are speaking against the clear meaning of the Bible, and this is unacceptable.
In essence, Dr. Ankerberg believes he has discovered new revelation from Hugh Ross—revelation that casts aside the belief of most Christians for over two millennia. So, when God wrote “evening and morning,” He apparently did not mean “evening and morning.” Do the peoples of the world now also need naturalistic training in order to understand God?
From this point on, Dr. Ankerberg shifts between his statements of disbelief in the normal six days of creation to his repeated attempts to use the words “literal,” “inerrant,” and “infallible” in describing his own heartfelt beliefs in the Bible. In true Clintonesque style, Dr. Ankerberg suggests that the “literal” meaning of the word “day” can sometimes have a different “literal” meaning (i.e., “seven long periods of time”).
Dr. Ankerberg is naturally banking on the goodwill of his loyal viewers, his “friends for close to 30 years.” Many have come to trust him to present biblical truth that is relevant to many sticky issues facing believers.
But now he is begging his constituents (“please hear me out”) to let him explain about this one man, Dr. Hugh Ross, who has revealed to him this “new” theory, day-age creation (no matter what he labels it), that makes Scripture conform to modern science.
And that’s where the rub comes: attempting to force Scripture to fit “the latest scientific evidence.”
End quote.
Letter by John Ankerberg is here.
Besides his blatant error and disregard for CLEAR Scripture, I'd like to quote his letter and point something else out.
"Believe me. I completely understand your feelings. I held the exact same viewpoint when I wrote two books arguing for the young earth position years ago. I want you to know I would not even consider another stance if it required me to deny a literal, inerrant, infallible interpretation of the Bible. Never! But as I have poured over Scripture, I slowly (it took over 15 years) began to believe the Bible revealed more information than I first understood and was teaching something different than my views. Now, you have trusted me to teach you many biblical doctrines over the last 28 years, so I would ask that you please hear me out, and give me a chance to at least explain to you the reasons why I came to believe that a literal reading of the biblical text is teaching the seven creation days are seven long periods of time."
He comes at his supporters with empathy:
"Believe me"
"I understand your feelings" "I held that exact viewpoint"
We are not called to believe anyone, but test everyone. In fact we as Christians are called to destroy all arguments that set themselves up against Christ Jesus. Feelings aren't the issue here, TRUTH IS.
He is coming at his listeners with authority and relies on the past and their trust of him:
"I wrote two books"
"I poured over Scripture (it took 15 years)"
"You have trusted me to teach you many biblical doctrines over the last 28 years so please hear me out"
"give me a chance to explain"
He is relying on the past to give credibility to his blatant error now. He is at least admitting that his newest doctrine IS a doctrine. But this proves an important, I think THE most important point: folks, you CANNOT trust a teacher by what he USED to teach. You must CONTINUALLY TEST HIM NOW. My old church went through this very thing. Relying on the past they hired a man to preach for four weeks. Thinking his past link to a large well-known church was good enough, they brought him in, only to send out a letter of apology following his fourth week of utter nonsense from the pulpit where he did nothing but plagerize Josh McDowell and tell stories and mention only one verse the entire sermon, which was taken way out of context.
People change. If they are not HIS they will reveal that over time. Their unbelief in Scripture will begin to show and eventually they will unashamedly proclaim their new way is the better way. In hopes of getting a following, they will pull the heartstrings of their former listeners and then pull the "I taught you so much, I can't be wrong now!" card. DO NOT LISTEN when they are off Scripture!
He speaks out of both sides of his mouth:
"I would not even consider another stance if it required me to DENY a LITERAL, inerrant, infallible interpretation of the Bible. Never! BUT...a literal reading of the biblical text is teaching the seven creation DAYS are seven LONG PERIODS.'
Sorry but that isn't a literal rendering of the text. Its error and unbelief and came along to get along with God-haters. Go here for why its wrong. He IS denying the literal interpretation of Scripture. The definition of "day" is right there in Genesis:
Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
Jeremiah 17:5, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind and makes flesh his strength and whose heart turns away from the Lord.’”
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Heb 11:2 For by it the people of old received their commendation. Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
What we are seeing is not new, but it is becoming pervasive. Look at what Robert Shindler said well over a hundred years ago when dealing with Modernists:
The Down Grade SECOND ARTICLE April 1887 Sword and Trowel
By Robert Shindler
"But in too many cases sceptical daring seems to have taken the place of evangelical zeal, and the husks of theological speculations are preferred to the wholesome bread of gospel truth.....But let a man question, or entertain low views of the inspiration and authority of the Bible, and he is without chart to guide him, and without anchor to hold him....But when, on the other hand, reason has been exalted above revelation, and made the exponent of revelation, all kinds of errors and mischiefs have been the result."
Is all truth God’s truth? (a philosophy many "Christians" use to go to God-haters for Truth because Scripture is not enough for them.) Go here for the answer.
John Ankerberg would do well to consider the whole of 1Cor. 1-2. He should repent. Here are a few verses:
1Co 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. 18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
How horribly sad that Ankerberg has been so decieved. He is not trusting in God's Word or power, but is relying on man and theories to "prove" God is Creator. Clearly for this man, Scripture is not enough and that is an absolute disgrace for a Christian, let alone an "apologist".
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
No comments:
Post a Comment