Ham and Nye I Was Wrong

Roast Beef and Cheddar Sandwich

Why did you take down the  post on Ken Ham and Bill Nye?

Because I was wrong in what I wrote.

I was wrong in what I wrote specifically regarding the use of the Bible in apologetics.

In the previous article I stated the following example with regards to using the Bible to debate sceptics:

“An example: I believe abortion is wrong.  But I won’t convince a sceptic with the Bible of my stance. When I debate  abortion with unbelievers, I do not quote Psalm 139, and say, ‘Abortion is wrong cuz the Bible says so.,’ Rather, I appeal to the scientific evidence.  A simple viewing of science in nature with a little philosophy will reveal a logical, scientific argument against abortion.  I do not think we should use the Bible in an attempt to win a debate with a sceptic, we should use the Bible to win souls…or more correctly, I hope that when I bring out the Bible with an unbeliever it is to share the gospel…not defend a particular view of creationism.”

This statement, while pleasing to my mind (and likely the minds of those who “liked” the article), is errant. My mistake in this statement is that I neglected to maintain the reality of the doctrine of the antithesis.

Wait, what is that?

An antithesis is an opposite, or a contrast, of something. Ronald Hanko puts the doctrine of the antithesis in simple terms, “{The antithesis is} the separation and opposition between darkness and light, believer and unbeliever, church and world.” Although the word antithesis is not found in the Bible, the doctrine of the antithesis is clearly taught in Scripture. For instance 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 says:

 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?  What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said:

“I will live with them
and walk among them,
and I will be their God,
and they will be my people.”


“Come out from them
and be separate,
says the Lord.
Touch no unclean thing,
and I will receive you.”


“I will be a Father to you,
and you will be my sons and daughters,
says the Lord Almighty.”

Simply stated,  I broke the doctrine of the antithesis by unintentionally telling my readers that when they engage in apologetics they should leave their Christian world-view and step over into the secularist world-view and engage there.

And I deeply apologize for that.

Now, I am not saying that that we should not use scientific evidence.  What I am saying is that we should stand firm on our foundation – the Word of God. Cornelius Van Til said that, “Apologetics is the vindication of the Christian philosophy of life against the various forms of the non-Christian philosophy of life.”  If I engage in debate using a secularist world-view, then I am not vindicating the Christian world-view, or philosophy of life against the worldly views and philosophy.   When I said that we should not use the Bible in this way, I was tossing out “Sola Scriptura.”

And I deeply apologize for that.

I am not fond of confrontation,  I want to be accepted as a reasonable and intelligent person by my friends who are secularist.  I have many unbelieving people in my life as I am sure most of you do. Some of these people are very close to me, my brother for one.  But we view things through strikingly different world-view lenses.  Lenses that are not compatible. They are in fact, antithetical. What I have been reminded of in the past 24 hours since I wrote the initial article, is that in order to remain faithful to God’s Word, Christians must stand courageously in the face of ridicule, we must continue to stand firmly on the Bible and uphold the doctrine of the antithesis.

You may also like...

No Responses

  1. You are correct that you were wrong. But now, when you say, “Christians must stand courageously in the face of ridicule,” it would be good to add that one must assess carefully whether what we are being ridiculed for is legitimate.

    Augustine warns, “Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although ‘they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertions’.” (Fuller quote available, e.g., here.)

    That said, I am not defending Nye for ridiculing Ham. But I agree with neither of these two.

  2. Michael Snow says:

    Great quote from Augustine. Both these guys have a B.S. Neither guy is well qualified to debate the science. It was a PR event for both. And Ham adds to what the Bible says. Most Christians do not accept his YEC view. http://textsincontext.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/in-the-beginning/
    Here was a recent debate by real scientists.

  3. SLIMJIM says:

    Courageous and encouraging to see your post. The antithesis is important.