In my recent post A Sad Dance Around a Simple Question: Did God Use Evolution to Create Man? I reported on the way that Ravi Zacharias, when asked by a man in his audience at a seminar if he believed in theistic evolution, avoided answering. I have great respect for Mr. Zacharias and his ministry of Christian apologetics, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). However, the way he avoided answering that question concerns me. It seems like a straightforward question and the Bible clearly provides a straightforward answer in the opening chapters of Genesis.
Why would a man whose ministry is to give a defense of the Christian faith not be willing to commit himself to answer such a basic question? Did God create the first man, Adam, from the dust of the ground? or did God guide evolution through millions of years to result in the first man "Adam"? Where could we find an answer to how God created man? In Genesis, of course. At least that is what Jews and Christians have believed for thousands of years. The only way to avoid the clear message of the Bible in Genesis is to act like it doesn't really mean what it says. Unfortunately, I think this is what Mr. Zacharias has done.
Mr. Zacharias has apparently fallen victim to the compromising positions of various Christian statesmen who deny that Genesis is a literal, historical account of creation. My first clue that this might be the case is mentioned in my previous post. In that post I noted that Zacharias referred the man who questioned him about theistic evolution to the theories of three different Christian men, Hugh Ross, John Lennox, and David Block, as resources for further information. Unfortunately, none of these men take Genesis as the literal, historical account of how God created. They all believe that the simple, face-value reading of Genesis that the church has historically held to for 1800 years is wrong. I wondered why Mr. Zacharias exclusively referenced men who do not believe in the literal, six-day creation. If there are several possible valid interpretations of Genesis, then why not provide a resource for the literal, six-day view along with the others? Did he just forget? I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, but suspected that this was an intentional omission.
Today I decided to go straight to Zacharias's website, RZIM.org. Under the "Questions and Answers" section, I found the following question: Does RZIM have a view on the age of the earth? The answer astounds me.
So was Zacharias's omission of any literal creationist resource intentional? It seems so. On this same website more resources are listed. It says: "Here are some resources that offer varying perspectives for your own study" [2] and then lists five publications from four different men. Again, not one of the resources listed are from a young earth (literal, six-day creation) perspective. It seems to me, if you want to provide a plethora of possible interpretations of Genesis, surely the one that has been the normal interpretation for thousands of years should be in the mix. Evidently, the only official position on the age of the earth that RZIM has is that the opening chapters of the Bible cannot be understood in their normal sense but must be reinterpreted to some scheme more suitable to evolution.
Go to the Answers in Genesis website, www.answersingenesis.org, if you want to know more about the resources listed on the RZIM website and why the theories promoted by them are not faithful to Scripture. There you can search for the authors' names and find critiques of their theories.
ENDNOTES:
[1] Questions and Answers, Does RZIM Have A View On The Age Of The Earth?, http://www.rzim.org/media/questions-answers/, accessed on January 15, 2015.
[2] Ibid.
Why would a man whose ministry is to give a defense of the Christian faith not be willing to commit himself to answer such a basic question? Did God create the first man, Adam, from the dust of the ground? or did God guide evolution through millions of years to result in the first man "Adam"? Where could we find an answer to how God created man? In Genesis, of course. At least that is what Jews and Christians have believed for thousands of years. The only way to avoid the clear message of the Bible in Genesis is to act like it doesn't really mean what it says. Unfortunately, I think this is what Mr. Zacharias has done.
Mr. Zacharias has apparently fallen victim to the compromising positions of various Christian statesmen who deny that Genesis is a literal, historical account of creation. My first clue that this might be the case is mentioned in my previous post. In that post I noted that Zacharias referred the man who questioned him about theistic evolution to the theories of three different Christian men, Hugh Ross, John Lennox, and David Block, as resources for further information. Unfortunately, none of these men take Genesis as the literal, historical account of how God created. They all believe that the simple, face-value reading of Genesis that the church has historically held to for 1800 years is wrong. I wondered why Mr. Zacharias exclusively referenced men who do not believe in the literal, six-day creation. If there are several possible valid interpretations of Genesis, then why not provide a resource for the literal, six-day view along with the others? Did he just forget? I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, but suspected that this was an intentional omission.
Today I decided to go straight to Zacharias's website, RZIM.org. Under the "Questions and Answers" section, I found the following question: Does RZIM have a view on the age of the earth? The answer astounds me.
RZIM does not have an official ministry position on the age of the earth. The focus of RZIM is apologetics and evangelism, and thus we do not address particular questions about creation, though we are committed to defending theism against naturalism. [1]I cannot figure out how RZIM can do apologetics and evangelism and not understand the very chapters in the Bible that are foundational to all Christian apologetics and evangelism. It is from Genesis that we learn who God is, who man is, what sin is, what the results of sin are, what God's remedy for sin is, etc. But if we don't know what those first chapters in the Bible mean, how can we be sure of anything?
So was Zacharias's omission of any literal creationist resource intentional? It seems so. On this same website more resources are listed. It says: "Here are some resources that offer varying perspectives for your own study" [2] and then lists five publications from four different men. Again, not one of the resources listed are from a young earth (literal, six-day creation) perspective. It seems to me, if you want to provide a plethora of possible interpretations of Genesis, surely the one that has been the normal interpretation for thousands of years should be in the mix. Evidently, the only official position on the age of the earth that RZIM has is that the opening chapters of the Bible cannot be understood in their normal sense but must be reinterpreted to some scheme more suitable to evolution.
Go to the Answers in Genesis website, www.answersingenesis.org, if you want to know more about the resources listed on the RZIM website and why the theories promoted by them are not faithful to Scripture. There you can search for the authors' names and find critiques of their theories.
ENDNOTES:
[1] Questions and Answers, Does RZIM Have A View On The Age Of The Earth?, http://www.rzim.org/media/questions-answers/, accessed on January 15, 2015.
[2] Ibid.