Light. We all love a sunny bright day. I know for myself I love the summer in New York City because there is more daylight in the evenings and the sun sets later. However, when individuals like to commit crimes and immoral acts it seems like the cloak of darkness is their favorite time of day. Light has a way of exposing our sinful behavior and deeds of darkness.
And when it comes to believing in the creation account of our universe and mankind, the veracity of the resurrection of Jesus, and even the question of is there really a God in the first place, I believe, it’s man’s inherent love of sin and darkness that blinds him to the truth in these areas. Let’s look at each of these three areas and see how darkness plays such a major role in blinding so many to the truth of the Bible.
The creation account of our universe and mankind
When Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution his knowledge of biological science was very primitive. He knew next to nothing about the complexity of the human cell believing that the cell was just a blob of protoplasm. Fast-forward to 2022 and we now know that a human cell is immensely complex and could never have evolved by blind random chance. Modern science clearly has dealt a death blow to the theory of evolution yet many still hold firm to its dogma. And the idea that some massive explosion (Big Bang) created our incredibly orderly universe makes as much sense as a tornado tearing through a junk yard creating a 747 jumbo jet!
The late Christian apologist Ron Carlson shared his insights on this issue as follows: “The tragedy is that evolution is a nineteenth-century philosophy that has been destroyed by twentieth-century science. Yet the lie continues to be perpetrated, not on scientific grounds, but because it is what morally justifies our immoral society today.”1 Clearly man enjoys his sin too much to even come out of the darkness to examine what he can plainly see in the light!
The veracity of the resurrection of Jesus
Without a doubt the resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the most historically verifiable events of ancient history. Yet many people today, historians included, refuse to even entertain its possibility because of an anti-supernatural bias. Thomas R. Schreiner states their position well: “When we read the New Testament, we see that credible historical reasons exist to support the resurrection of Christ, but many scholars refuse even to consider the evidence, for they are antecedently convinced that resurrections cannot happen. This fundamental bias, i.e., naturalistic philosophy, is all too often cloaked as “objective history.””2
This innate anti-supernatural bias, I believe, is also shrouded in an anti-God bias. This is because these historians, like those scientists who refuse to examine the evidence for creation, know that they would now be accountable to God for their sinful behavior if they were to acknowledge that the God of the Bible exists. Thus, they would also have their own deeds, done in the darkness, exposed.
Many historians refuse to follow the evidence wherever it may lead because in the words of Professor Richard Lewontin, a world leader in evolutionary biology:
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”3
Is there really a God in the first place?
The real fundamental question that confronts those who refuse to acknowledge the God of the Bible is eloquently stated by Bible Professor
William Lane Craig: “Therefore, when a person refuses to come to Christ it is never just because of lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties: at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God’s Spirit on his heart. No one in the final analysis really fails to become a Christian because of lack of arguments; he fails to become a Christian because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with God.”4
In the final analysis it, all comes down to loving darkness rather than light and suppressing the truth of what God has clearly revealed about Himself. Man’s attempt to hide his sinful deeds and avoid accountability to a holy God is summed up powerfully in (Romans 1:18-21):“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.”
1 Charlie H. Campbell, Apologetics Quotes (Carlsbad, California: The Always Be Ready Apologetics Ministry, 2020), p. 104.
2 Charlie H. Campbell, Apologetics Quotes (Carlsbad, California: The Always Be Ready Apologetics Ministry, 2020), p. 104.
3 Amazing admission – creation.com
4 Charlie H. Campbell, Apologetics Quotes (Carlsbad, California: The Always Be Ready Apologetics Ministry, 2020), p. 105.
“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
There are mainly two schools of thought on apologetics: presuppositional and evidential.
The above quote and most of the rest of this devotion, have likely, unintentionally made a case for the presuppositional approach. I say “unintentionally” based on numerous prior devotions that defended an evidential approach. The “a priori adherence to material causes” is the presupposition of an unbelieving worldview and a boatload of evidences are not going to give him the eyes to see the truth. His intentional suppression of truth will put his mind in overdrive to close the door on the Devine Foot if confronted with a presuppositional argument that challenges his materialistic worldview.
Our apologetic can never assume neutrality at any point of unbelieving thought, “Do not answer the fool according to his folly” Prov. 26:4. We must first dismantle his worldview and pray the Spirit will open his eyes to the bankruptcy of his materialism that cannot account for anything, including his own breathing.
Then we can answer him according to his worldview so we can show how ridiculous his folly is Prov. 26:5, “lest he be wise in his own eyes.” This is an internal critique, showing the antithesis of his worldview with a believing worldview. Then, may the Holy Spirit open his heart to the gospel, bringing him to repentance, which brings knowledge of the truth. Before repentance, there’s no knowledge. It’s all folly to him.