Posted on 08/01/2013 10:40:10 AM PDT by fishtank
Is Biblical Creation a Distraction to Evangelism? by James J. S. Johnson, J.D., Th.D. *
The Institute for Creation Research and other biblical creation ministries are sometimes criticized as distractions from the ministry of evangelism. The alleged concern is that the promotion of biblical creation as taught in Genesis creates controversy by derailing the evangelism process—distracting people from learning about who Jesus is and trusting Him as their Savior.
Does teaching biblical creation truth interfere with a proper presentation of the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior? Before that question can be squarely answered, consider the context of the controversy. Dr. John Morris addressed this issue:
A student once asked, “In your debates, have you ever known of somebody who was saved as a result of the debate?” My father [Dr. Henry Morris] and Dr. [Duane] Gish had several hundred debates. One time we ran a request in Acts & Facts to respond to a survey regarding the debates. One question was a salvation question. Many people responded, saying it was a very instrumental point in their journey to Christ.1
Some would argue Dr. Morris was alluding to favorable anecdotal evidence—that he offered no realistic allowance for the individuals who were “turned off” from seeking God because they were alienated by creation-versus-evolution polemics. Others might fault his report as being too vague. They might say he failed to provide any meaningful qualification regarding how to teach creation. They may question whether teaching about creation “in the beginning” helps or hurts a seeker’s journey, his ability to learn about God, and his willingness to come into God’s eternal sheepfold through His only begotten Son.
Clarification about who our Creator God is helps us appreciate Jesus and how He can rescue human souls as the uniquely all-sufficient kinsman-redeemer of Adam’s fallen race.
What about the value of rescuing one sheep?
Certainly for the one lost sheep who comes to the Good Shepherd, statistics are irrelevant (John 10:1-16; Luke 15:3-7). That truth fits one classroom example, which began with a Christian student’s desire to show a biblical creation movie in the main auditorium of a North Carolina state university’s law school.2 The university granted permission to show the movie on campus, but the student was inept at using the media equipment provided. Providentially, his best friend and study partner was mechanically adept, and he agreed to run the film projector for the event. Ironically, the technically talented friend was a doubter—unconvinced that the Christian faith was truly reliable. The creation movie was packed with scientific information and analysis, proving how purposefully living creatures and their indispensably necessary submicroscopic components—such as DNA and RNA—are designed and constructed and how they operate.
In the movie, the creation scientist Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith explained the material and informational importance of chiral molecules (e.g., the left-handed amino acids needed to build the hardware of life), as well as the mind-boggling complexity and details of human chromosomes.3 A moderated and emotionally spirited discussion followed the showing, with audience viewpoints voiced by both evolutionists and creationists, several of whom were faithful ICR supporters.
But, at the end of the evening, the creation movie’s message was not truly over because the helpful student who ran the projector began thinking about how all of his scientific doubts and excuses were resolved. That conclusion was more than academic—it had logical implications, including some big questions such as: What do I do with the Creator who has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that He is God—the Creator whom Dr. Wilder-Smith declared “became my Redeemer” in the Person of Jesus Christ?
After a time of wrestling with pride and receiving more encouragement to believe in Christ, the mechanically gifted student became a thoroughly convinced believer in the Lord Jesus. The creation apologetics movie was helpful in eliminating excuses that were once barriers to saving faith for that former skeptic—through viewing the movie, he was guided toward becoming a fully persuaded sheep.
Does teaching creation help or hinder evangelism?
Individual experiences may be exceptional cases.4 So the question remains: Does teaching biblical creation with an emphasis on “in the beginning” routinely help gospel evangelism?
Yes—teaching about how God created in the beginning helps us introduce the saving gospel of Christ. In fact, objective evidences in the Bible demonstrate that biblical creation truth is one of the underlying theological foundations for evangelizing unbelievers. For example, consider the role model of Paul’s apostolic ministry. Paul began evangelizing Gentiles with an introductory declaration of God as the Creator (Acts 14:15-17; 17:19-34). But there is even a stronger proof of this point in the introduction of John’s gospel, the only book of the Bible that is explicitly written for an evangelistic purpose:
In the beginning. It is significant that the Apostle John began his gospel with the words: “In the beginning.” He obviously intended that his record should start with the same words as Genesis, that is, with creation. Since his explicit purpose in writing was to win his readers to Christ as Son of God and Savior (see John 20:30-31), he realized the foundational importance of prior belief in special creation of all things by God. People need to know Jesus Christ as offended Creator before they can believe with understanding on Him as sin-bearing Savior and Redeemer. A foundation of true creationism as the only meaningful context for true evangelism is thus revealed through John, under divine inspiration.5
John did not “distract” his readers by beginning with creation (John 1:1-3; 1:10-12). Rather, his gospel authoritatively presents the evangelistic gospel message by introducing Jesus as the incarnate Creator God apart from whom nothing was made that was made (John 1:3; see also John 20:30-31). Therefore, biblical creation truth is the proper theological foundation for evangelism—for explaining how Christ became our Messianic Savior whom we should believe in.
God chose to first introduce Himself to us as our Creator—that same Creator God who, as Dr. Wilder-Smith gratefully acknowledged, “became my Redeemer” (Genesis 1:1; John 1:1).2 And that is how we should introduce Him to others. When was the last time you showed or gave away a creation movie such as God of Wonders?6 This can be a very nonthreatening way to witness. DVDs like this help us appreciate the glory of our Creator, and they can help us evangelize lost sheep who need to be brought into the fold.
References
Morris, J. D. The Genesis Flood, Lesson 2, page 30. A transcribed lecture from the Institute of Creation Research’s School of Biblical Apologetics (SOBA). To learn more about ICR’s SOBA (which offers degree programs for M.C.Ed., B.C.Ed., and A.C.Ed.), visit icr.edu/soba. The law school illustration alludes to the use of a biblical creation movie that focuses mostly on explaining creation science rather than providing a gospel presentation. See Wilder-Smith, A. E. 1983. Origins: How the World Came to Be. Origins video series, volume 3. Mesa, AZ: Films for Christ. The movie’s content matches much of what appears in A. E. Wilder-Smith’s book The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (Costa Mesa, CA: The Word for Today Publishers, 1981; translated from the original German by Petra Wilder-Smith).
The creation science movie featured Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith, a European young-earth creationist inventor who earned three doctorates in the overlapping sciences of biology, chemistry, and pharmacology. See Wilder-Smith, A. E. and B. Wilder-Smith. 1998. Fulfilled Journey: The Wilder-Smith Memoirs. Costa Mesa, CA: The Word for Today Publishers.
Exceptional results may illustrate God producing good results from not-so-good circumstances, or even from human misbehavior (Genesis 50:20; Numbers 22-24). See the editorial footnote by Henry M. Morris for John 1:1 in Morris, H. M. 2006. The New Defender’s Study Bible. Nashville, TN: World Publishing, 1563. God of Wonders DVD, available through the ICR online store (icr.org/store).
* Dr. Johnson is Associate Professor of Apologetics and Chief Academic Officer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Cite this article: Johnson, J. J. S. 2013. Is Biblical Creation a Distraction to Evangelism? Acts & Facts. 42 (8): 18-19.
Sure sure - all us Christians are just illiterate unscientific hicks - right?!
Actually the entire modern science movement would not exist without the contributions of several very prominent Christians. One Sir Isaac Newton for starters.
Death is a result of the fall - the original sin of Adam and Eve - so why the strange statement about sudden death and minor disease injury?
Well donmeaker you are in for a treat then with the site I provided you. Ever heard of the 4th state of water - supercritical - this undergraound water and the temp/pressure it was under is the crux of the hydroplate theory. Also Dr. Brown supplies a chart showing the major problem with carbon-dating - namely what happens to the c12 vs c14 ratios when all the land-dwelling lifeforms are drowned and buried in a sea of sediments.
Also since carbon-dating only allows ages upto 50,000 years or so I hardly see how it lines up with [assumed] radio-isotope dating as well as starlight. But then if you spend a little more time reading instead of criticizing then just maybe you’ll begin to see creation has much more of the proven science rather than evolution. Evolution simply has the over-bearing beaurocratic weight of the government, msm and major universities - kinda like the same way so many have accepted global warming as science when nothing could be farther from the truth.
Which creation account? The first one where the creator is described by a plural name (Elohim) or the second one where the creator is described by a singular name (Yahweh)?
Science demands objectivity. The rigors and methodologies of science are designed to frustrate and expose those who attempt to abuse it as a tool to advance a personal agenda outside of the pursuit of science. People tend to not look favorably on those caught doing it.
Carbon-14 isn't the only radioisotope used for dating. Uranium-238 is also used as well as many others.
All have similar assumptions regarding initial ratios and do not allow for foreign contaminants leeching into and out of the fossils. There are also hundreds, if not thousands, of facts that science can not explain against the present paradigms.
Cracks me up how certain you ‘science’ types are who will only educate yourselves on one side of the crevo debate[usually by ever-escalating rhetoric claiming creation is not science] and smugly ignore factual evidence that supports the Biblical accounts.
Well all the greatest scientists who ever lived not only believed in God but practiced science to better understand his power and his creation. Today’s ‘science’ does not allow for God and claims to be a superior approach in so doing - like gouging out one eye might help you see better - really? Tell me more - cough...
Romans 1:19-22
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
The rock surrounding the fossil is also dated. Also concerning starlight, are you trying to say that the speed of light in vacuum is changing?
Actually it is circular logic [not logic at all] when the rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks!
No on the 2nd question - suggest you read “Starlight and Time” by Russell Humphreys PhD.
So are you (BrandtMichaels) suggesting that the speed of light in a vacuum is changing? It’s a simple yes or no question.
So you don't think the speed of light is changing.
Correction, I was responding to BrandtMichaels.
In order for his idea to work, either the gravity on Earth is so high that the Earth crushes itself into superdense degenerate matter or the repulsive force for bodies beyond the Earth prevents those very same bodies from forming in the first place.
Aww gosh shucks I guess your just too smart for me - is that supposed to be my response to you?
Listen up sonny boy - there is no science nor scientist on Earth knowing everything. Furthermore there are no scientific instruments that can measure everything either - some conditions are just too extreme to verify the conjectures that most science is built upon. Lastly science is never science when it is discussing past history no matter whether thousands nor billions of years. There are no scientific experiments that can simulate the passage of time nor declare what the prior nor starting conditions were [this applies to your prior posts too].
So please heckle all you want it just shows your true motives.
Last Thursdayism.
A great example of YEC ideas being a distraction to Evangelism, God planting things in the past to look older than they appear. This would imply that God is a deceiver, a distinctly unChristian concept. However, it would be perfectly acceptable in Islam since in that religion, God's Sovereignty is absolute, even over truth. The Islamic conception of God implies that God can change the truth at a whim. As I said before to others, this is one of the reasons that the practice of the scientific method went further in the Medieval Christian World while the Islamic World eventually gave up on pursuing the scientific method
The objective is to keep the thread going and the venue alive to present more opportunities to quote scripture and post links to creationist web sites. It doesn’t matter how logically tortured it is, as long as you’ll respond to it.
Yep,and God didn’t lay Adam down as a newly formed zygote on freshly cooled magma plains.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.