Recently, a blogger commented on my recent blog post about a religion professor at Butler University and his testimony of how he became a “born-again Christian.” Frankly, I saw little evidence in this professor’s testimony that he in any way understands what a “born-again Christian” really means from a biblical perspective. At the same time, without knowing the professor, I want to be careful about commenting on what his walk with God might actually be.
The blogger—who commented positively on what I wrote—believes in an old earth and thus is not an AiG supporter. The blogger stated the following:
I believe the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old, and that the Bible doesn’t say much one way or the other about biological evolution. I believe that young-Earth creationism is neither necessary Biblically nor valid scientifically.You can read the entire blog post.
Ken Ham is president of Answers in Genesis, and believes the Bible requires an approximately 6000-year old Earth and that most fossils were deposited during Noah’s flood. He believes that to accept an old Earth is a compromise of Biblical truth.
But we are in agreement on something that is far more important than the age of the Earth or the extent of Noah’s flood, and that is the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Ken Ham had a blog post yesterday (A Warning to the Contemporary Church) where he responded to a Christian critic whose testimony of how he came to be “born again” was rather ambiguous. [He then quotes the Bible verses I listed in regards to salvation] . . .
The gospel isn’t “God gave me peace when I listened to a song.” It is not a warm, fuzzy feeling.
The gospel is the good news that Christ died on the cross for our sins and that those who trust in Christ have a new relationship with God and will have eternal life in and with him for all eternity.
I don’t know where this critic, a professor of New Testament Language and Literature at a liberal arts college, stands before God; only God knows. I would expect a New Testament professor who professes to be a Christian to be able to give a clear statement of faith, and he didn’t. Ken Ham, on the other hand, gave a clear outline of the gospel.
Amen brother Ken Ham. Preach Christ and Christ alone as the way to God.
Yes, old earthers and young earthers can agree in regard to the message of salvation, as this blogger and I do.
I decided to comment on this blog post for two reasons:
- I appreciate reading an old earther quoting me in regard to salvation, understanding that I do not say, and have never said, that a person has to believe in a young earth to be a Christian. Salvation is conditioned upon faith in Christ—not what one believes about the age of the earth. I have stated this clearly many times over the years. But sadly, I still read those who falsely claim we at AiG tie salvation to the age of the earth, which brings me to my second point.
- We do not tie salvation to the age of the earth, but we do tie biblical authority to the age of the earth. Although this old earther I quoted above does not agree with us (well—not yet anyway :) ), nonetheless I stand by our insistence that to add millions of years into Scripture is to apply a hermeneutic whereby one is taking the fallible results of man’s fallible dating methods to reinterpret the clear reading of God’s Word (e.g., reinterpreting the days of creation, adding a a gap of time, or presenting the many other similar positions).
They continue with me…and have nothing to eatThanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
(Matthew 15:32) I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat: and I will not send them away fasting, lest they faint in the way.
When we continue with the Lord Jesus Christ, daily in obedience listening to Him in His Word, making His work our work, then He takes care of our needs, food.