The Christian Account of Everything Compared to Naturalism’s Account of Everything

This blog post will compare two worldviews: the Christian account of everything and the account of everything according to naturalism.  These two worldviews will be compared in four categories: view of the Creator, view of creation and Creator-creature relations, view of salvation, and the ethical implications for creation from these previous viewpoints.


View of the Creator

According to the Christian account of everything, God has always existed; he is eternal and exists in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  All things that now exist came into existence out of nothing through the Father’s spoken word and are held together by his Son.  (Genesis 1-3, John 1:1-4, Colossians 1:15-20, and Hebrews 1:1:-4)  The narrative of Creation in Genesis (as well as the rest of Scripture) indicates that God is a personal being who was very much involved in the creation of all things.  This is indicated by the design and plan of the days of creation, in which God created in a particular order of creating boundary markers within his creation with a progression of creating life within those boundaries for the care and safety of his creatures (Day 1 – Light and Darkness/Day 4 – Heavenly Bodies, Day 2 – Land, Sky, Water/Day 5 – Creatures of the Sky and Water, Day 3 – Vegetation on the Land/Day 6 – Creatures of the Land, including humanity).  He is still very active in his care for his creation.

According to naturalism’s account of everything, all things have arisen purely by blind chance.  Order has come out of chaos.  Life has come from non-life.  Minds have come from mindless matter.  Laws of nature have simply emerged (or have always been) and are assumed to be held in consistency by nature itself.  Nature is all that there has been, all that there is, and all that there ever will be, though this cannot be empirically observed, it is a position held on faith that nature when given enough time will impersonally bring about all that we currently experience through a process named natural selection.  In short there, is no Creator.

View of Creation and Creator-Creature Relations

One’s view of nature is directly tied to one’s view of the Creator.  In the Christian account of everything, nature is best understood as having been created with a proper distinction between it (creation) and the Creator.  The Christian view of creation comes from what God has divinely revealed in his Word about his creation, which is that his creation was originally created – very good!  God’s creation as it stands now is not as God intended it to be.  Through the free-agency of his creatures (first by Satan and his angelic followers and Adam and Eve and now us) who rebelled against God’s will for his creation (the boundary markers of the law that were set out of love for the safety and well-being of all God created), creation itself has been wrecked with sin, death, and evil and stands far from the very good origins of God’s creation.

According to naturalism’s account of everything, all is chaotic and in a state of constant change.  Naturalists who hold true to their account of everything must admit that there is no purpose or meaning in a world that is the product of mindless, random selection, and constant motion.  There is no Creator-creation distinction/relationship; all is nature; all is matter.

View of Salvation

The Christian account of everything has a view of salvation in which God enters into his creation through his Son who became a part of creation through his assumption of a human nature into his personhood.  It is through the Son that God has reconciled all of creation to himself and it is through his Son that one day all things will be restored to God’s original plan (theologian’s debate if this will be a recreation of creation or a new creation, something akin to a Creation 2.0, but it is clear in Scripture that all things will be made new at Christ’s return with a freedom from sin, death, and the devil forever for those who are God’s children through their faith in the Son and his saving work!). (Revelation 21-22)

It is in the view of salvation that naturalists take many divides.  Some naturalists are intellectually honest with their account of all things and recognize that death is the finality of one’s conscience existence; there is no salvation; there is no life after death.  Such naturalists may tend to find a form of salvation in living one’s best life now (YOLO – “You only live once.”).  Anton LaVey’s philosophy of Satanism is an example of this naturalistic view of the world and life and is the prescription for how to best live this life to one’s maximum pleasure.  LaVeyan Satanism is very much hedonistic materialism in which salvation is found in a freedom from social and religious constraints that hinder one from indulging in their carnal desires.

For other naturalists, salvation is found in evolution, an ever occurring progression of improvement (or that is the hoped-in product of nature’s constant state of change – improvement of life).  Some have taken up an active role in this evolutionary progress and have embraced transhumanism – a movement that actively seeks to speed evolution to a new humanity through the joining of human life with technology.  Transhumanism’s highest aim is the implantation of one’s mind into a machine so that one’s consciousness can “live on forever” beyond the limitations of one’s physical body of death.  This is a form of material salvation, though it betrays the fact that one is more than mere physical matter, because transhumanism’s salvation is ultimately found in the preservation of one’s immaterial consciousness.

Ethical Implications

In the Christian account of everything, God is the ultimate standard of morality.  He is good, and it is from God’s eternal state of immutability that we can appeal to an absolute standard of right and wrong for Creation.  For humanity’s ethical role in the grand scheme of all of creation, God has placed us here to be stewards of his creation.  We are to use our God given abilities, including our reasoning capabilities, to care for God’s creation and to cultivate it to its betterment out of love for God and for our neighbors and for our fellow creatures.

In the naturalism’s account of everything, there again is a divide that occurs depending on one’s view of salvation.  For the naturalist who recognizes that there is no salvation; ethics is boiled down to the four-word mantra of Allister Crowley (the Beast) and Anton LaVey, “Do What Thou Wilt.”  There is no God above, no hell below; eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we all die!  For the naturalist who sees salvation in evolution, ethics becomes utilitarian- what best serves survival.  This survival could be centered on the whole of humanity, within a particular collective of humanity, or within the individual.  There is no standard of absolute right and wrong, morality is subjective.

Please visit Contradict Movement for stickers, tracts, shirts, and books.

101. Are Scripture and Darwinian Evolution Compatible?

>> Click Here to Listen to the Episode! <<
(Right click and “save as” to download the file)

Or listen in iTunes!

Are Scripture and Darwinian Evolution CompatibleSean Pino interviews Andy to see if he thinks Scripture and Darwinian Evolution are compatible. The literary nature of Genesis is discussed, the source and origin of physical death in creation, the interplay between scientific discovery and theory with Biblical interpretation, and why some Christians are adamant in their refusal to adapt Darwinian teaching into Christian Doctrine.

46. 12 Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid

>> Click here to listen to Episode 46! <<
(Right click and “save as” to download)

Or listen in iTunes!

Reconnect Episode 46

Ben Fisher riffs on “12 Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid”.  Answers in Genesis created the list of bad arguments.  Do you agree?  Are these bad arguments that evolutionists should avoid?

Show Links:

12 Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid

“Busting a Myth about Columbus and the flat Earth” by The Washington Post

41. Is Belief in Theistic Evolution a Salvation Issue?

>>Click Here to Listen to this Episode!<<
(Right Click and “Save As” to Download)

Or Click Here to Listen in iTunes.

Theistic Evolution

Ben joins Andy to share answers to six analysis questions he wrote to accompany articles written by Ken Ham, of Answers in Genesis, who is against theistic evolution, and Tyler Francke, of God of Evolution, who agrees with theistic evolution.  It’s a divisive conversation in the Church today.  Ben and Andy look forward to your feedback after listening.  Below you’ll find the articles Ben has selected for analysis. 

Articles Against Theistic Evolution:

Articles For Theistic Evolution:

Analysis Questions:

  1. What is theistic evolution?
  2. Can you be saved and go to heaven if you believe in theistic evolution?
  3. What dangers/theological problems are there in believing in theistic evolution?
  4. Is it possible that God could have used evolution to eventually create man?
  5. How does the following statement apply to the issue of theistic evolution? “Filling in where the text doesn’t speak and speculating is not interpreting Scripture. Interpretation is to give the meaning of what is written.”
  6. Is it possible to preach the message of the cross and the Gospel without a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis?

Norman Geisler – Science and Scripture? Nooooooooooooo!!!!

Norman Geisler – this bright, strong advocate for the Christian faith.  One of the greatest apologists, defenders of Scripture, in our age.  I just saw an article posted on his website… entitled, “Does Believing in Inerrancy Require One to Believe in Young Earth Creationism.”

In this article, he claims numerous times that it is possible to have gaps between the days of the Genesis accounts of creation (Alternating Day-Age Theory).  He claims it is possible to have a HUGE gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 (Gap-Theory).  He claims it is possible that each day is lengthy epochs of time (Day Age Theory).  All of this is true.  Anything is possible.  He then rips all the arguments of a 24-Hour Day interpretation of Genesis 1.  He then provides arguments for all of the other theories.  He concludes by saying that the age of the earth doesn’t matter – it’s not important to salvation – it’s never been an essential doctrine or creed in church history – UNTIL NOW, of course.

What Geisler doesn’t do a great job of mentioning is that all of the views besides the “Young Earth” view have death reigning in the world before the fall of man into sin!  He also fails to mention that these other views (as of today) are arising not from Scripture Alone, but from the process of inserting prior beliefs into the reading of Scripture and performing interpretative gymnastics to pull out of Scripture the beliefs that were inserted into the text.

Please, read the article linked above, and then read my response.

I think we should note his hermeneutic – his formal principle. Norman Geisler writes near the end of this article, “If the Young Earth view is true, then so be it. Let the biblical and scientific evidence be mustered to demonstrate it.” This is not Reformation sola scriptura at work! That is my biggest complaint against the Old Earth crew. Members of this growing elite, such as Hugh Ross, claim that God has given us two books! Ross actually says “two books.” By this he means natural knowledge (general revelation) and revealed knowledge (special revelation). Since when does God’s revelation of himself through what he has created become on par with Scripture? I think that the Old Earth Creationists are starting with their conclusion that the world is very old based on their interpretation of what they see in the physical world and then interpreting Scripture in light of that presupposition.

From strictly reading the Bible, why would we suspect that there are gaps between the days in Genesis or that there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2? From strictly reading the Bible, why would I suspect that there were millions of years of death in the animal kingdom with entire species being wiped off the face of the planet before the creation of Adam and Eve and before their fall into sin?

I agree with Geisler that one does not have to believe the earth is a certain age to be a follower of Christ – to trust in the salvation that comes through Christ’s work alone, but using “science” to interpret scripture is a bad hermeneutic and teaching death before the fall does not sit well with a very good world created by God. Many of the leading Christian apologists today are making claims that death in the animal kingdom was in the world before the fall of man and that there is where the huge problem lies! Death without sin is not Scriptural. God did not create a world of death. Teaching this as the Old Earth Creationists teach can very easily lead people away from Scripture and therefore away from God.

Go to to find links to my book, other merchandise, my Facebook page, and my Youtube Channel.