Unassailable: A Simple Faith in the Bible

file-3By Ken Hamrick

“For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.” (Ex. 20:11 NASB).

“When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son […] and named him Seth […year 130…]
Seth lived one hundred and five years, and became the father of Enosh […year 235…]
Enosh lived ninety years, and became the father of Kenan […year 325…]
Kenan lived seventy years, and became the father of Mahalalel […year 395…]
Mahalalel lived sixty-five years, and became the father of Jared […year 460…]
Jared lived one hundred and sixty-two years, and became the father of Enoch […year 622…]
Enoch lived sixty-five years, and became the father of Methuselah […year 687…]
Methuselah lived one hundred and eighty-seven years, and became the father of Lamech […year 874…]
Lamech lived one hundred and eighty-two years, and became the father of […] Noah […year 1056]

Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.” […year 1556.] (Gen. 5:3-32 NASB). Continue reading

Grand Opening of EpoLogos

Although we have launched EpoLogos on November 27, 2018, you may notice that there are already posts going back to 2012. We have brought with us to this project various articles relating to the topic of creation that we have written over the years (with particular indebtedness to the now closed SBC Open Forum). And while Jim Pemberton and Ken Hamrick are the founders of this, we hope to find other Evangelical writers who share our convictions regarding creation to join us in this pursuit.

EpoLogos is, primarily, a response to BioLogos, which affirms “evolutionary creation, recognizing God as Creator of all life over billions of years.” We see the BioLogos view as an unfortunate and ill-conceived capitulation to the world’s insistence that truth in origins can only be found through the lens of materialistic naturalism. Continue reading

Admonitions to a Disappointed Young-Earther

This article was also published at SBC Voices.

By Ken Hamrick

Recently, I came across a paper in the Journal for Baptist Theology & Ministry, written by Dr. Kenneth Keathley in 2013, entitled, “Confessions of a Disappointed Young-Earther.”[1] The piece is well done and gives an informative summary of the various arguments and supposed problems of the Young-Earth Creationism movement. After reading it, I must say that I’m just as disappointed as Dr. Keathley, but for different reasons. I’m disappointed that the enemy, who is delegitimizing the truth-claims of Christianity by undermining the authority of Scripture, is often met with so little resistance and so much well-meant, reasonable-sounding cooperation. I’m disappointed that not even the best among us are immune from a skeptical evidentialism. And I’m disappointed that one so capable of competent reason would falter in thinking that evidence has bearing on the question of a recent miraculous creation. Continue reading

Justin Taylor’s Doubts About 24-Hour Days of Creation – In Retrospect

by Jim Pemberton

A couple of weeks ago Justin Taylor posted an article entitled “Biblical Reasons to Doubt the Creation Days Were 24-Hour Periods”. Since that time, many have posted articles refuting Justin’s arguments. In this article I will post links to some of the ones I know about and make a couple of observations myself.

First, let me start off by saying that in general I respect Justin. He’s a well-reasoned man of good character and genuinely strives for biblical accuracy. I just think he missed the mark on this one. Nevertheless, his article seems to have given many of us the incentive to hash this issue out. Continue reading

Shedding Light on the Length of Pre-Sun Creation Days: A Text-Based Approach

by Ken Hamrick

In the ongoing debate over the Genesis creation account, one supposed problem that seems particularly troublesome for many is the question of the length of a day prior to the creation of the sun (on Day 4). Since the sun is the means by which a day is usually measured, then it is objected by Old-Earthers that we are left without any sure understanding of what God might possibly mean by the term, “day,” when it is used to describe the first three days of creation. Here’s the text:

Genesis 1 ESV
1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. Continue reading

Of Science and Faith: Revelation, The Concurrence of Faith

by Jim Pemberton

Up to this point, I have made a case for faith based on reason. In this article, I want go back to a section of a previous article that talks about how reason is based on faith. This is the article where I discussed the limitations of the scientific method. The section comprises the first half of the article and is entitled Unprovable Presuppositions.

Of Science and Faith

We all rely on unprovable presuppositions. It’s unavoidable. This is why it is all too easy for one camp to level at the other the charge of circular reasoning. Continue reading

Of Science and Faith: Revelation, The Certainty of Faith

by Jim Pemberton

So what of the foundation for knowledge between the non-theist and the theist, particularly the Christian? (I acknowledge a difference between other theists and Christians because Christianity has a particularly compelling apologetic for revelation. I won’t discuss that here, however.) So I’ll start this article with a recap of some of the earlier material and use it to jump off into a comparison between Christian and non-theistic epistemology, or to say, “how we each know what we claim to know.”

Of Science and Faith

Faith isn’t blind, it is reasonable

It is a non-theistic charge that “faith is blind”. That is to claim that faith fills in the gaps for what we don’t know. That definition of faith is called “fideistic”. But mature Christians hold to a different definition of faith. Continue reading

Of Science and Faith: The Scientific Method, Limitations

by Jim Pemberton

In the previous article I stated the scientific method in probably its simplest terms. I also stated it in probably its best light. In this article I will turn the tide and discuss some of its limitations. I’m sure I won’t be able to state them all here. However, I do want to establish two categories for understanding the epistemological limitations to the scientific method.

Of Science and Faith

Unprovable Presuppositions

The first category is spelled out by the name I gave to this section: Unprovable Presuppositions. Different philosophical systems have different criteria for epistemological demonstration. Continue reading

Of Science and Faith: The Scientific Method, A Positive Look

by Jim Pemberton

We often hear about how science is based in reason, but we aren’t often taught precisely how this works. We know something of the scientific method, but we don’t know how it relates to logic. We only have some sense that it does. We have come to the part of this series on Science and Faith where I will discuss how the scientific method is based on deductive logic in general.

Of Science and Faith

There’s no need in this series to handle all the various forms that the scientific method takes, so this will only be a general discussion. It will involve the common steps and how each works together to produce a reasonable conclusion. Continue reading

Of Science and Faith: Deductive Logic

By Jim Pemberton

In discussing science and faith, the word “reason” is often bandied about without much to say as to what it actually is. Those with any education in philosophy know of the three laws of logic and how to construct syllogisms. That excludes most of the world. So in one short blog article, I intend to lay it out as simply as possible. The reason is that you can’t understand the scientific method without understanding how syllogisms work. Unfortunately, many scientists, while they know how to use the scientific method, don’t understand how it works logically. That’s the reason for discussing it. Hopefully by the end of the next article you will have at least an inkling on how it works and have a leg up on most scientists.

Of Science and Faith

The Three Laws of Logic

There are three important laws of logic that philosophers have discovered over the millennia. They will seem simple at first, and they are. But many simple things get overlooked if they aren’t discussed, and it’s a big deal if these simple things are important. Continue reading