The Growth of Replacement Theology: Will It Lead to Another Holocaus? Part 1

 

Deuteronomy 14:2: For you are a holy people to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples who are on the face of the earth

Since this is International Holocaust Remembrance Day, here’s an article that fits the occasion.

Ron Matsen, who is president of Koinonia Institute, also has over 30 years of pastoral ministry as well.  He has lectured many times on end times, so he is well-suited to discuss “replacement theology;” this theory has a sizeable end-times application.  Replacement theology is one of the oldest controversies impacting the Christian church. Unlike controversies on the canon, or Arius, this controversy has never been resolved. By the time you reach the end of this paper (in two parts), you’ll see why.  The subject’s  importance is further strengthened by the fact that virtually all the Reformation-based denominations teach it.  And there has been an increase in evangelical denominations that do, too.  So let’s see what it’s all about.  We’ll start with a definition:

Replacement theology:  The view that the Jewish people and the land are replaced by the Christian church to fulfill the purposes of God to become the historic continuation of Israel.  The theory says that God rejected the Jews because of their rejection of His laws and what they did to His Son, so when the Bible speaks of God’s dealing with ‘Israel’ from the book of Acts and beyond, He is really speaking to not Israel but the church. The nation Israel has no calling in the plan of God; promises and covenants are null and void—they have been given to the church. This is particularly important for the end times.  So, the theory goes, Israel is no longer God’s chosen people.

Is there a Biblical basis for the view?  Definitely.  Let’s start with Jeremiah.  Poor Jeremiah was the prophet in the last days of Israel and Judah (Israel split in two when Solomon’s son ruled).  He records God’s anger. Jeremiah 3:6-8:

The Lord said also to me in the days of Josiah the king: “Have you seen what backsliding Israel has done? She has gone up on every high mountain and under every green tree, and there played the harlot. ⁷ And I said, after she had done all these things, ‘Return to Me.’ But she did not return. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. ⁸ Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also

God considered Himself married to Israel, in a spiritual sense, in this and many other Old Testament verses (like Jeremiah 31:32).  When Israel worshipped other gods, God considered it harlotry, or adultery.  In this verse, from the Old Testament, He is fed up with His wandering “wife” and has given the Jews a divorce. 

A second verse that supports replacement theology goes like this:  Jesus, in the week before He was crucified by Pilate and the Jews, prophesies about the Jews’ fate in Matthew 21:43:

“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.

The “kingdom of God” is a spiritual kingdom, revealed since His first advent. Since Jesus arrived, it is for those Gentiles and Jews who are saved and are operating under the King’s principles, as Jesus outlined them in the New Testament. On the subject of His accusation that they would lose membership in the kingdom, it sounds like He meant the whole nation, all of them.  But this is still theory. He says He will take away the promises previously given to them, and will give them to the saved Gentile people (not an individual nation; the word ‘nation’ should just be “people.”) 

 Thirdly, two chapters later, in Matthew 23:37-39, Jesus makes another judgment on the Jews: 

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! ³⁸ See! Your house is left to you desolate; ³⁹ for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ ”

God’s patience in longsuffering does have an end.  The word “desolate” suggests that His presence with them (think of the pillars of cloud and fire in their Exodus) is abandoned.  BUT note verse 39, hmmmm.

Lastly, for this paper, Paul, in Romans, gives us a re-definition of what it means to be a Jew.  Romans 2:28-29:

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; ²⁹ but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

God has always wanted His people to show a different spirit to the world.  His loving compassion and His fairness in justice He wanted mirrored in His people. A “real” Jew is a new creation in the spirit, or shows changes inwardly.  One born a genetic Jew is one only outwardly.

But I have a problem about how this verse is interpreted by replacement theologians.  Is He saying, the genetic Jews were not considered real Jews, and should be dispossessed? Some would think that.  But think straight on this:  Do you see Paul cursing the Jews, or saying they transferred their covenantal rights to Gentiles?  No, he doesn’t.  You’re reading beyond what he said to what you want to hear, out of your prejudice.   He is simply defining “real Jew” as any Jew or Gentile who is saved and showing inward signs of a new creation. Nothing more. Circumcision, in these verses, is a symbol that signifies them as His peculiar people (see Deuteronomy 14:2 at the beginning of the paper).  The Jews twisted it to a sign of salvation, but Paul is thinking of the symbolic meaning, that the person “stamped” with it should act how a person ought to behave, the new creation of a saved person.  (Turning a cheek to those who attack us, or forgiving our attacker, for example).  Most of the Jews were not “inward” or “real” Jews when they loaded God’s law with man’s burdensome traditions.  Most were arrogant of the poor, and had no compassion. More than once God told them He preferred mercy over their sacrifices. Most of the Jews were “going through the motions” if they even celebrated a religious ritual that God gave them. Their heart wasn’t in it; they lacked a heart of love for God and His wonderful character.”  But not all of them were “fake Jews,” spiritually. 

Those four verses are just a few, but they present a powerful position in favor of replacement theology.  But there are some negatives to the theory.  Mr. Matsen points out that this view causes prejudicial hatred of the Jews, and the theory was instituted by prejudicial church fathers when they made church legislation.  This started ‘way back in history. He cites factual evidence that Christian fathers clearly showed this prejudice, which was troubling for me to read, since I had always revered them.  The apostles didn’t think this way.  Here are a few examples:

Ignatius of Antioch (50-117 AD) taught that those who partake of the Passover are partakers of those who killed Jesus. 

Passover, the Jewish ritual involving the shedding of blood of an innocent lamb to free the people, is an important symbol of the sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb of God, whose blood shed for us frees us from sin. Now please hear me on this:  Symbols are important.  So dis-allowing fellowship and abandoning those symbols is a terrible idea.  But it was done by the Western churches to avoid fellowship with Jews.

Thus, as early as the first century, we have the first prejudicial quote of many of the church fathers toward the Jews.  (The shame of Ignatius is that he was the student of John the Apostle, the disciple that Jesus loved the most—who never expressed an angry bone in his body).  The idea of placing all the blame for killing Christ on the Jews germinated very quickly.  The problem with the blame, as I see it, is: Both Jew and Gentile were at fault in Jesus’ death. Fact is, under the Romans, the Jews were not permitted to sentence anyone to death; they had to clear it with their Roman Gentile masters—in this case, Governor Pilate. It’s also true the Gentiles were the ones who tortured Him and delivered the final blow to Jesus’ life; and a gruesome blow that was, as many Scriptures—Old and New Testament—attest. It’s true, on the other hand, that the Jews hounded Jesus throughout His short life, and finally egged Pilate to exterminate Him. But he stalled, knowing that Jesus was not guilty.  If this Gentile had a spine, he could have told the people to get lost, so he must bear part of the fault for condemning an obviously innocent person to death. Sure, if he had let Jesus live, the blood-lusting Jews might have rioted, and he might have had an insurrection like the Maccabees did 200 years before, and that could cause bloodshed, and even loss of his soldiers’ lives.  But that was not the cause of his decision against Jesus.  He knew that the Roman soldiers could handle any riot. He, as many Gentile rulers before (and many since), simply did not respect life much—whether it was his soldiers, or Jesus.  Despite the warnings of his wife, he had no clue of what kind of Man stood before him.  Jesus was simply an inconvenience. So what if he killed an innocent man? Get Him out of the way so these people calm down; I want to enjoy the rest of my afternoon.  So, I believe God had guilt on both parties—the Jews actually cursed themselves for their part in this act (Matt 27:25), and Gentiles willingly did what they asked.  But this was God’s purpose.  As Paul pointed out in Romans, we are ALL guilty of sin; He died for our sin; we all were the reason Jesus died. Each had a hand in killing Him. That is why I was troubled to read how Ignatius shook off what he was taught, and blamed the Jews only.  (I have an upcoming blog on the church’s move against the Passover hinted above).

Justin Martyr (about 150 AD) claimed that God’s covenant with Israel was no longer valid, and the Gentiles had replaced the Jews.

So the replacement idea was in full flower as early as that.

Similar were the thoughts of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen as well.  All otherwise giants in the faith in those first 200 years after Christ was taken up. 

Things got even more heated up, especially when the Church gained enough influence to be “married” to the State—i.e., when Constantine declared them the official religion of Rome (313 AD, Edict of Milan). The church would then load up with pagans (looking for advantage by belonging to the “right” church), so now it was powered and attended by pagans.

The Council of Elvira, in Spain, 305 AD, prohibited Christians of that country from sharing a meal with a Jew, or marrying them, blessing them, or of observing the Sabbath with them.

That was bad.  Then the hammer came down:

The Council of Nicaea (325 AD), changed the celebration of the Resurrection from the Jewish Passover and the Feast of First Fruits, to Easter to avoid participation with the Jews. 

So they made legislation, from evil thoughts as early as Ignatius. This was a stupid move on two other fronts besides prejudice:  Again, symbols are wiped out:  Besides Passover, Jesus was the First Fruit of those who are resurrected. The festival of First Fruits began on Nisan 15, the day after Passover—so the anti-correct date of Passover legislation also basically ended celebration of First Fruit.  So they took that spiritual date and that meaningful symbol away too. (Kids got hurt the most.  Most have questions about what was going on in the special service—thus, when you explain and throw in the real meaning of the symbols, it’s an evangelistic tool.  And easier to memorize because you have visuals and repetition).  Secondly, throwing it at Easter was terrible, since Easter was already a pagan holiday. It even had an idolatrous worship of a goddess of sexual fertility (including religious prostitution) and, likely elsewhere, a goddess of spring (my upcoming blog will attempt to spell this out).  As a result, Passover, like substitution of Santa Claus instead of the birth of Christ, has been censored or corrupted away from their real meanings.  The fourth reason this was a bad idea was this:  God, in having the Jews celebrate Passover for Jewish freedom as they had for centuries, wanted them to see the second, the more real meaning of Passover, meaning Christ.  It was a way they could be saved and become Christian Jews.  He also wanted the Christian Jews to celebrate with Gentiles who believed in Christ. So people could see that it wasn’t just some Jewish cult; salvation was for everybody.

Here are the Nicaean Council’s statements on this subject.  Keep in mind, this legislation is really the Western Church trying to exercise power over the Eastern churches, who were doing the right thing and celebrating Passover and the Resurrection together, on the right date:

We also send you the good news of the settlement concerning the holy pasch (ie Passover) namely that in answer to your prayers this question also has been resolved. All the brethren in the East who have hitherto followed the Jewish practice will henceforth observe the custom of the Romans and of yourselves and of all of us who from ancient times have kept Easter together with you. Rejoicing then in these successes and in the common peace and harmony and in the cutting off of all heresy…

Saying that the Christian Jews are guilty of “heresy” (and implying that the Eastern churches that celebrate on the same day are partakers of heresy, too) was a smear upon the whole Jewish people, and the Eastern churches as well. The Western churches (centered in Rome) were also forcing the Eastern churches (who, by the way, want to continue the proper date and have no prejudices against the Jews), to worship the Roman way (the corrupt Easter), just to be “united.”  (This was the beginning of the split between the two churches, Orthodox and Catholic, that fully broke them 700 years later).  Fact is, some of the earliest Jews were not heretical at all; they were the first ones, largely, who became Christians. Gentiles weren’t fully evangelized until Acts 9. (PS: I found prejudice in Mr. Matsen’s statement about the Council’s decision, stating negative things the Council did not say.  His source might have wanted the church fathers in Nicaea to look more spiteful than I have already made them!).   

The point of all this is that some people dislike replacement theory because it “causes” the prejudice you see above.  I maintain that it sure happened that way, BUT--it’s possible to believe in replacement theology without hating the Jews.  Believing in It could be just a response to Scripture (like the ones above).  We could believe in replacement theory and still have compassion on the Jews, still understand that their mistakes, like our mistakes, could be forgiven and covered by the Cross.  We can believe that we are all responsible for crucifying Jesus, Jew and Gentile, and still believe from the above Scripture in replacement theology, and have Scriptural backing.  Corrupt thinking is what caused people to lay prejudice against the Jews, not a doctrinal theory.

Thus, we have not made a single point against replacement theology in this paper yet.

Christians who believed as the Eastern churches did about Passover for Resurrection celebration were known as Quartodecimans, which means “the 14ers,” named after the Jewish day of Passover—the 14^th of Nisan.  (It included the Feast of First Fruits, which began the next day). 

Now, the worst cut of all:  Later the 14ers (these were Passover Gentiles, not Jews; the Jews had been persecuted more severely at all stages) were excommunicated from Church for their “heretical” belief. Some countries even threw out the Jews, like Spain did in 1492. Having all your property taken away, and going homeless, they should see as un-Christian. (Excommunication was a big deal at the time; most people believed that on that act, they would lose their salvation and go to hell. These people evidently believed God would have mercy on them for standing up for the meaning of Passover over against a pagan celebration, and see them righteous vs. their oppressors.

Finally, two more examples of early church fathers who showed their true stripes (there were many others as well):  The Old Testament had been translated by Jewish scholars from Hebrew to the Septuagint, in Greek, useful by nearly everybody, since most people in the heart of the Empire spoke Greek. But St. Jerome, a famous late 4^th century Church father, felt it necessary to translate it from Hebrew to Latin—a questionable idea, since Latin was a dying language--he believed that the Septuagint was corrupted by Hebrew scholars, so he rejected the Septuagint.  So here is his quote, and it will help you understand why he rejected the Hebrew scholars' efforts.  He described the Jews as:

…serpents, wearing the image of Judas, their songs and prayers are the braying of donkeys.

For history buffs, the renowned Augustine didn’t escape the prejudicial bite:  he asserted that the Jews

…were deserving of death…

Mr. Matsen points out that all this produces arrogance, involved in boasting against Jews. As I said before, you can’t blame replacement theology for that.

Mr. Matsen then did make his first good point:  a weakness of the replacement theory is, the church becomes “branches without roots.”  Let me explain that one.  The church, in the theory, can ignore the Old Testament (since it was “just about the Jews”) about the rise and fall of Israel.  But I have a problem with doing that:  the symbols of the Old Testament are gone; the special meaning of the tabernacle, the religious feasts—the laws God gave them, too—those laws prevented inflation, they suppressed the homeless count, they instituted restitution as the best way to handle felons. Israel’s morality or faith in God in handling crises, the great true stories the kids love to hear, are all there.  You can’t call these irrelevant.  Our roots are in the Old Testament. Do we not believe that ALL Scripture is profitable (II Timothy 3:16), even Old Testament? Do we ignore the fact that much of what we know, in Christianity, was rooted in the Old Testament, and explained to the Jews?  In His Bible, He has written us a letter—a really long letter—about questions we have all had throughout the centuries:  Why are we here?  Is there a God?  Is He personal to each person?  Does He judge?  What are His expectations of us, if any?  Much of this is explained in the Old Testament.  IF we see how God treated Israel when they were bad, and when they were good, we can know how He will treat us. 

Many people get anxious reading the Old Testament because they assume God is a harsh Judge, eager to shed blood in wars, etc., and they prefer the loving, easy-going Jesus in the New Testament. Replacement theology allegedly helps you by urging you to read only the New Testament.  On that line of thinking I have an anxious thought for them: God and Jesus were often the opposite of what you assume--God is loving and compassionate many places in Scripture, and Jesus can whip you with His tongue. Jesus talked more about hell than anybody.  Here’s one for your anxiety: in replacement theology, God cut off the Jews!  That means He might cut you off!

This refusal to face mortality must end; wake up!  Get ready to meet your Maker by reading His Word and find out the clear way to avoid hell (it’s not what you think!)

I had to stop in the middle of this debate—sorry.  Be sure and get my final points, and decision next week.  As always, praise to Our God. 

The Word "IF" in Scripture Places Conditions on Where You Spend Eternity

 The word IF appears many times in the New Testament in conjunction with salvation. Its first definition, per Funk & Wagnall’s, is: “on the supposition or condition that…” The abundant Scriptural use of the word "IF" should be enough to convince the student of the Bible that final salvation, getting to heaven, is not merely dependent on “accepting Jesus in my heart.” Final salvation depends on the condition of abiding in Christ, and showing fruits of the Spirit. Let’s start the “IF” study with a verse on one of those required fruits, forgiveness. In Matthew 6:14-15:

“For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.15 But IF you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Jesus has a dead-serious word of warning here: If we are unwilling to forgive, then God doesn’t forgive us. If God doesn’t forgive you—you are doomed to hell. You really need to think: Is there anyone I can’t seem to forgive? None of this “I can forgive but I can’t forget” excuse. Of course we can’t burn out memories, but when you see that person, what’s your emotional reaction? That’ll tell you if you forgave them.  Have you talked with them lately, if they're alive?  Do you feel tense, hypocritical, or criticize them afterwards?

Now I realize that I’ve commented on the above Scripture from Matthew in another blog, as well as many verses that follow. But it’s a good idea to put all the “Ifs” together. From them, I advise making a list of commandments you need to meditate on (like forgiveness). Work on every one. Develop the proper fear of God (another blog) for motivation to spur you on. It’s a difficult task to actually be objective about yourself—we all deceive ourselves and perform sins toward people that we never think about. We all develop “great” excuses for sinful behavior.

Matthew 24:24: For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, IF possible, even the elect. 

Don’t be fooled by the uplifting pastor who quotes this, and says “the 'if' makes this just a hypothesis, so deceiving the elect can’t really happen.” The Bible talks much about apostasy, particularly in the last days. That’s falling away from the faith. How do you fall away from something, unless you were attached to it in the first place? So we are talking about people that had faith, but are in grave danger of losing it. Therefore, don’t dismiss this verse as “hypothetical.” Losing our faith in Christ can happen, if bad things come our way, and we’re not steadfast in Him. We need to pray to God to teach us, through His Word, how to develop that quality of steadfastness.

Luke 13:7-9 has a special meaning: 

Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, ‘Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it use up the ground?’ 8 But he answered and said to him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it. 9 And IF it bears fruit, well. But IF not, after that you can cut it down.’”

This expresses God’s patience, but ultimate judgment on us if we are not consciously bearing fruit.  Galatians 5:22-23 shows the fruit we must develop if we’re on the Vine, abiding in our Lord. John 15:1-6 is an important parable on the vine. It has a very important warning at v.6:

IF anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. 

From this verse and the one above, you can see that if you’re not developing fruit, abiding on Christ’s vine, you eventually, after God’s patient wait, will be cut down—and thrown into the fire.

Telling the same story is Hebrews 6:7-9: 

For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it, and bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God; 8 but IF it bears thorns and briers, it is rejected and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned. 9 But, beloved, we are confident of better things concerning you, yes, things that accompany salvation, though we speak in this manner. 

Note that the author is looking for “things that accompany salvation,” such as bearing fruit—in this analogy, useful herbs--to know the person is really the Lord’s. IF you are not bearing fruit in your life, if you bear thorns and briers, you are “near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned.”  Serious words.

An interesting word is “hyperbole.” Modern common-taters say that means Jesus didn’t mean something when He said it, so you can dismiss it (they love to dismiss verses that sound like God is “harsh.”) Instead, what you’re supposed to do with hyperbole is to grab the kernel of meaning, and run as far as you can with it, obediently. Here’s a phrase actually using hyperbole. Mark 9:43-46:

IF your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched—44 where ‘Their worm does not die And the fire is not quenched.’ 45 And IF your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame, rather than having two feet, to be cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched— 46 where ‘Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.’ 

It’s obvious that Jesus is not into self-mutilation—so this is hyperbole. BUT don’t dismiss these verses; don’t ignore the main point: That point is, don’t let ANYTHING get in the way of you getting closer to God. Such a thing would be a sin; in fact, it would be by definition, an idol. And idols could send you to hell. By the way, there are some scary details about hell in the above verses that should provide additional motivation for you to look for ways to lead a more godly life.

Romans 11:21-23 has a harsher view of God that we don’t often hear in sermons:

For IF God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, IF you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, IF they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

As I will elaborate in a soon-to-be-published blog, this is spoken to Gentiles. And how to “continue in His goodness”? Follow His commandments; they’re all in New Testament Scripture. The phrase “He may not spare you either” is particularly troubling. Consider also the phrase "on those who fell, severity..."  That could mean, those who abandoned God for the world of sin, or it could mean those who fell away from the truth, into apostasy.  God is "severe" to them.  But...let’s not try to refuse these words or judge God as being harsh, using our sin-afflicted mind. Rely on His revelation. Which means, read the Word more. Get to know Him. He loves that, and the Holy Spirit will give you the feeling that you are with Him.

Romans 8:13: 

For IF you live according to the flesh you will die; but IF by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 

The word “die” speaks of hell, eternal separation from God, our Life. Note that sinful deeds of the body do not fall away, nor does goodness ossify onto you; YOU must actively “put to death" the deeds of the body. It takes work. The Holy Spirit will help, if you are His. Call on Him.

I Corinthians 15:1-2: 

I declare to you the gospel…, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, IF you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 

“Hold fast” means “hold firmly.” You do the grasping. These verses tell you that forces exist that will tear you away from God by the wiles of Satan. By the way, holding fast the Word presupposes you’re a day-to-day reader of it. And “believed in vain” suggests that with some people, belief was followed by unbelief (how else can you explain the phrase “in vain?”). They were saved, then unsaved.

Galatians 6:8-9: 

For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life. 9 And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap IF we do not lose heart.

There are many things in life that might cause us to lose heart; grieving over loss of a loved one, financial reversals, not being appreciated for doing good. That’s when we want to forget the sacrificial life plan Jesus gave us and do some selfish “sowing to our flesh.” We must resist this urge; think instead of the blessed hope of rapture and heaven.

Philippians 3:8-11 are perhaps the most glorious verses Paul has penned in the Bible. I’ll just focus on 10-11:

… that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, 11 IF by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

Verse 11 contains a troubling insecurity by Paul; "if...I may attain to the resurrection." If any man deserved heaven, it was Paul. But the closer we get to God (and Paul was very close), the more aware we are of our grossness in sin, the more we feel that we don’t deserve heaven. Yet God gives it—to the righteous. We don’t have to live a perfect life, just be persistent in goodness and avoiding sin. Thereby we may "attain" (effort required) to the resurrection.

Colossians 1:21b-23a: 

…yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight— 23 IF indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard…

Because of His suffering, we who truly follow Jesus are now reconciled to God. Us and God—we who were enemies, are now friends. But there is a condition: We can be presented holy IF we continue steadfast in the faith. The faith is not just a mental assent thing: we show by our behavior that we are in the faith.

A similar message is in I Thessalonians 3:8: 

For now we live, IF you stand fast in the Lord.

More on the necessity of "standing fast" or “holding fast” is in Hebrews 3:6: 

but Christ as a Son over His own house, whose house we are IF we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end.

And in Hebrews 3:14:

For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end

Verses about “holding fast” and “hold steadfast” are in direct opposition to the “once saved always saved” Calvinist believers. They’re convinced that Christ has done all the work, and if we rely on our own efforts, or work (even if we are helped by the Holy Spirit) to live righteous to attain final salvation, that means we didn't have the "correct" theology, so we never had true faith. I disagree. Maintaining salvation by effort (such as “holding fast” suggests), is perfectly Scriptural. Which means they’ve ignored lots of verses, as we see above. I’m convinced their system leads to dangerous complacency.

A word for fathers and husbands is in I Timothy 5:8: 

But IF anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

We’re talking about hell, here, since the destination of an unbeliever is hell. How could a man be “worse” than that, as the verse suggests? Maybe he"s downright lazy; and attached himself to the church simply to take advantage of their wonderful giveaway programs. But this evil desire of his heart is not making his “worship” an act of faith; it is only to fill his family’s belly without working. In general, anyone who pretends to have the faith and then denies it by deceptive action is worse off than anyone who hasn’t received the faith at all yet. That’s because his false confession, just to grab some food, makes his heart hard, and that makes it much more difficult to become saved ultimately. Plus, God makes you more responsible if you have heard His Word and then deny it, compared to someone who hasn't ever heard His Word.

II Timothy 2:12: 

IF we endure, We shall also reign with Him. IF we deny Him, He also will deny us

On the danger of denying Him: This is repeated elsewhere in Scripture, such as in Deuteronomy 31:17. Scripture, however, indicates denial may not have to be verbal: How we live can be a denial of His rule over our lives. Jesus must be Lord over you, or you are not His. But remember, even if you deny Him by life or words, God can take you back: Notice Peter, who denied Our Lord three times (after being warned that it would happen!). He repented deeply, and was forgiven. He became one of the heroes of the early church. Because he sincerely repented, and because he endured.

Hebrews 2:1-3: 

Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away. 2 For IF the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward, 3 how shall we escape IF we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him 

These verses speak worlds that we never hear sermons about.  Look at the warning in the opening line, "we must give the more earnest heed to the things...lest we drift away."  Knowing the dangers of hell and our self-deception, we should spend time giving earnest heed to the Word--and reflectively considering our life and thoughts.  This warning is multiplied by knowing that "every transgression and disobedience received a just reward..." The author is saying, “look at all the great stories you’ve heard (and read) of the workings of faith. And you've noted how people are lifted by the Lord in the faith, BUT you have seen the punishment done to those outside the faith. If you read all this and ignore all that and don’t believe it, you’re leaning to hell” ("how shall we escape?") A sober word to every reader of Scripture. Of course, you could doubt the truth that the Scripture is God’s Word; but that’s a gambler’s toss—what if you were wrong? You’re gambling on eternity.

Hebrews 10:26 is controversial; I’ve included verses 27-31 for context:

For IF we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The LORD will judge His people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God 

It looks like sinning “willfully” is unforgivable. To explain, the term “willfully” has a darker meaning than we use it for; see Numbers 15:30-31:

‘But the person who does anything presumptuously, whether he is native-born or a stranger, that one brings reproach on the LORD, and he shall be cut off from among his people. 31 Because he has despised the word of the LORD, and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be upon him.’

“Presumptuously” has the same dark meaning as “willfully.” It’s defined at “impertinently bold,” sort of an “in your face” to God, publicly despising His rules. (Hebrews 10:29 gives details that suggest some had done this). Plus, we’re talking about a person who has been warned by full knowledge, and clear signs to fear God on sin, but totally ignored it. The perfect example of willful or presumptuous is to read Numbers 15:32-36 in context, right after the public warning above, wherein the spies who brought an evil report about the land God wanted them to go to, immediately died by the plague. A severe punishment! After this clear sign of God’s anger, then the people felt bad, and went up to battle again without asking the Lord, and they got slaughtered. That was two clear results of sin and God’s judgment. For they had just been given rules to live by for the Sabbath. So it was clearly time to fear God and stick closely by His rules, right? The track is clearly laid out. So what did one guy do? On the first chance he got, he broke the Sabbath rules. As I say, an “in your face” to God, reproaching Him, publicly despising His law. He was immediately cut off, a severe punishment for just picking up sticks on the wrong day. But put it in context. My bet is, such individuals usually had a long history of willful sin, to be that rebellious. God knew that man; knew that nothing would turn such a person around.

Hebrews 10:38: 

"Now the just shall live by faith; But IF anyone draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him.”

This is apostasy; drawing back when things get tough. Where God has “no pleasure in him” doesn’t speak well as to his ultimate destiny on his current path. 

Hebrews 12:25 needs some explanation:

See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For IF they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape IF we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven

The Jews had a rare blessing: God spoke to them on earth in Exodus, which He didn’t do often. As we showed in Numbers 15, it wasn’t wise to ignore His Words. Well, what does this other phrase mean, He “speaks from heaven?” That refers to His Scripture, His Word. We’re supposed to read it, just as if His booming voice, and thunder and lightning, were attending the reading. By being written, Scriptures are clear, and anybody can read it and hear from God. Your responsibility for reading and obeying it is thereby greater than those living in the Old Testament who didn’t have the benefits we have today--mostly they just had oral tradition. Sometimes oral tradition has errors, but Scripture doesn't.

James 1:26: 

IF anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless.

Another measure to tell if we’re saved—do we bridle our tongue? If we don’t, our “religion is useless.” He’s being polite, but he’s sort of implying that we might not be saved if we have a nasty tongue that spreads gossip, slander, and profanity regularly.  As James says, tongues are a fire of hurt--they can tear down people and prevent people from being saved.  They tear apart churches, too.

II Peter 1:10: 

Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for IF you do these things you will never stumble

It takes diligence to godliness to make certain of your election to the ranks of the saved.

II Peter 2:20:

For IF, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning.

This reminds me of one of the unfruitful seeds of the Sower in Matthew 13:22. There, the “cares of the world” and “deceitfulness of riches” (here, the “pollutions of the world”) make the thorns grow, to choke the word the Sower is seeding. Here, someone is “entangled in them and overcome.” The Word has lots of warnings about loving the world. Don’t stretch your sympathy for this person so far as to accuse that it's God's fault—remember, the entanglement, the choking, the overcoming, was entirely voluntarily entered into by this person. You need to keep in mind, too, that he got lots of pleasure in the world while he was being entangled. Oh, you ask, why is it “worse for them than the beginning?” Because, as I said earlier, each time we reject the Word, our hearts get harder and more difficult to save.

I John 1:9: 

IF we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

I have detected no greater failure from pastors than their lack of preaching this verse, on the urgent need to confess our sin. When we’re initially saved, the sins we have done to that point are forgiven. Beyond that date, it’s up to you to respond to the Holy Spirit’s urging you to confess. The verse clearly says that confession is necessary to receive forgiveness for them. That’s a great Biblical rule that’s becoming obsolete. I guess Protestants don’t do it because we don’t want to copy the Catholics in confession. Well, that shouldn’t be a problem. You don’t need a priest—just sincerely confess each sin you can think of to God in your morning devotions, or before you go to bed at night. And, if you hurt anyone, it's a good idea to confess to them too.  This idea is great to teach to kids, too.

I John 2:3: 

Now by this we know that we know Him, IF we keep His commandments.

This is the first of many statements by John that we can derive the opposite--if we don’t keep His commandments, we don’t “know” God. What does it mean to say that we finally “don’t know God?” As you read elsewhere, that means hell for our ultimate destiny. Doesn’t that make you want to know what His commandments are? I’m not talking about “Love God, love your neighbor, that’s enough.” The Bible has commandments to single people about fornication, commandments to men and women who want a divorce. And there are serious consequences for those who break those commandments. God means what He says!

I John 2:15: 

Do not love the world or the things in the world. IF anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

If you read Scripture elsewhere, you have to conclude that you’re in danger of being on your way to hell if you love the world. We must learn how to love God. You can’t do both—according to other Scriptures. How do you love God?  Think of how you loved a person.  You think about them, you spend time with them.  How much of the day do you think about God? Versus how much of the day do you watch TV, go shopping, spend time on Facebook, have small talk with your neighbors? Gee, you say, come on--none of those things are dangerous enough for hell. Well, tally up where your spare-time thoughts go. Loving someone means you spend a lot of time thinking about them, asking yourself (or them) what do they want. The same goes for God.  Try not to deceive yourself. If you never think about God except on Sundays--do something about it.

Revelation 14:9-12: 

Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, “IF anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.” 

This is a prophecy of the last days. There will be this mark of the beast given to everyone, probably a chip in the forehead or hand, which enables you to buy necessities for your family—food, clothing. IF you accept this chip, no matter what excuse you may give (such as: “Lord, of course you wouldn’t want my family to starve or die, so I’ll take the chip—but it doesn’t mean I worship the beast”), it's saying you will spend your eternity in hell. God is kind enough to not only warn us in His Word, but will provide an angel with a warning, which will be heard by everyone in those days. So no excuse will do. If you take the mark; Hell it is. You may think you have a Hobson’s choice like Abraham: Do I kill my family member (Isaac),  do I obey this insane commandment? Or do I disobey it?  I  For men's last days on earth, it seems like a bad choice:  Do I take the mark and go to hell, or do I let my family starve to death?  Maybe your family will not starve to death.  I think the good end result for Abraham (Genesis 22) through his obeying God’s Word will be repeated again in those last days, because a loving God will protect and reward His obedient sons: We’ll probably get food miraculously. Defying the antichrist, though, still means your family could suffer. Keep this in mind: Better to give your life—and go to heaven forever, than to fill your belly (or your family's bellies) for a couple years and spend eternity in hell.

Revelation 22:18-19: 

For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: IF anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;19 and IF anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Bad news if you are kicked out of the holy city in that day; the only other housing is hell. Keep in mind: there are books that in some “Christian” denominations are adding to the Bible, and people give them equal status to the Bible.  Those authors and leaders are bound for hell. On the other hand, to work to remove, or ignore, some Bible verses that "don't belong there," maybe because they aren’t politically correct, or you’re uncomfortable with the supernatural, is committing the opposite sin (taking away from the Word). Equally disastrous.  In any event, messing with the sacred Word is not a play that you should be engaging in. These verses are important enough that they are the last words of Scripture. And the last word of my paper.

Acknowledgement: Dan Corner, The Believer's Conditional Security 

Modern Scientists vs Theologians, on the Age of the Earth

 

Dr Albert Mohler, a past president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in a Ligonier conference, does a great job of answering the question “Why Does the Universe Look So Old?”  What follows is a mixture of his words and mine. 

Many “experts” think this question is unimportant, so let’s begin there. Dr. Mohler, looking at it from a Biblical perspective, says the question is “extremely important; and we need to be ready to give an answer” to defend what we believe.  So let’s find out why; let’s begin.

Here are relevant verses from God’s Word:  Genesis 1:1-5, 21-23, 26-31, 2:1-2, 4a:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ² The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

³ Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. ⁴ And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. ⁵ God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day……21And God saw that it was good. ²² And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” ²³ So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

²⁶ Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over ^]all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” ²⁷ So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. ²⁸ Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth”; and it was so. ³¹ Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

2 Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. ² And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day….4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created….

I have other blogs commenting on these verses, but Dr. Mohler takes a different approach, so let’s read on.

Dr. Mohler stresses that the emphasis on days being in succession strongly suggest a sequence of creation. AND Scripture strongly suggests seven, 24-hour days, especially with the reappearing phrases “so the evening and the morning….”  When you add up generations in Scripture, their lifetimes, it also suggests the creation of man was under 7,000 years ago; so it disagrees with what scientists surmise, which is some 200,000 years as an intelligent being.  I should add that a study of population growth suggests that when evolution says we became “hominoids,” in the millions of years that have passed since, we should be totally overrun with people.   A younger earth hypothesis, in 7,000 years, comes closer to explaining current population. 

The younger earth as suggested by Scripture, was believed almost unanimously by the church until the early 1800s.  But four great challenges to the traditional reading of Genesis have emerged in the last 200 years:

1)     The discovery of the geological record as a result of expeditions going to new corners of the globe after the Enlightenment of the late 1700s.  Fossils, and their strata, seemed to be telling a story different from Scripture.

2)     The emergence of Darwin’s publication on evolution, in 1859.  Dr. Mohler reminds us that evolution was a hypothesis already in circulation before Darwin; and since he wanted to prove it and not Scripture, he therefore was not using scientific protocol.  Because a scientist approaches a theory objectively, with no favorites.  Note:  Since true science relies on repeatable observed events, it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a theory of creation that advances any further than speculation.  Then why was evolution accepted with such acclaim?  I maintain that people WANTED the theory to be true.  As is the same today.  Then they have no God, so they have no accountability to God for their behavior. 

3)     The discovery of ancient Near Eastern parallels to Genesis, such as the Enuma Elish (a Babylonian epic of creation), and the Epic of Gilgamesh.  Scholars began to think they were all the same; they were just man’s speculations on creation.

4)     The development of higher criticism, which began to dominate thinking in the late 1700s.  It’s also called the “documentary hypothesis.”  They wanted to treat the Bible as a merely human document.  They asserted that the writers did not receive inspiration from the Holy Spirit.  So it is not inerrant.  They attacked particularly the first five books of the Bible (the Pentateuch). One of their proofs is, Moses didn’t write all of the Pentateuch, as Scripture says. The books have different writing styles (their proof is weak), so there were different writers.  They thus called God a liar. They also insisted that some Books were written later than was previously believed, because it contained impossibly precise prophecies that came true.  Here’s a case in point:  The Book of Daniel, since it is filled with specific prophecies that came true after he died—is clearly implying these prophecies had to come from God, who knows the future.  So God was telling Daniel what to write, which upholds the Bible as inerrant in the original, and contains all Truth.  Well, science had to attack this Book.  Even though Daniel is listed as the writer in 4 places (chapters 8-10), and we all agree that he lived around 570 BC, they refused to accept those dates or him.  So with an all-consuming desire to leave God out of it, when you look up Wikipedia on the Book of Daniel, they say it had to be written around 167-164 BC, which was “conveniently,” I add, after the last prophecy in the Book was fulfilled. So Wiki says an “anonymous writer,” was really just writing history, and pretending to be the prophetic Daniel.  Oh, foolish scientists!  Did you know that Wikipedia uses modern scientific cohorts for truth, and has constructed the name “Bible Wiki” to its version of the bible, which are often anti-God?  I might add, they also say that part of Daniel is “legendary.”  Of course, they don’t point out which part was “legendary,” but they get away with smearing Scripture anyhow.

So let’s focus more on defense.  First, science is not exact; it is a moving target, changing  dates and order when new knowledge arises.  Over the years, the universe’s birth date has gotten older and older.  The scientific consensus “right now” is that Earth and our solar system are approximately 4.5 billion years old. (These high numbers are convenient for evolutionists:  they allow us to speculate gigantic changes in animal life, leaping out of families to a totally different kind, for instance. (vs. Scripture, which stresses that every generation is “in its kind.” See above Genesis verses.) They even have the audacity to suggest that apes evolved to man. No reference to a soul, or belief in a Higher Power.  Of course, that’s just the way they like it. So even if we never see anything suggesting such changes, we allow that it could happen, Given Enough Time).  The universe is 13.5 billion years of age, they say.  (The difference between those two numbers is due to how the “Big Bang” hypothesis worked out).  PS:  I hasten to add that the Big Bang theory is only 90 years old, and it began from the fertile mind of a Catholic priest and cosmologist.  (The word “cosmologist” sounds scientific, but those folks work from their imagination more than fact.  You can get more fact out of a cosmetologist).  Dr. Mohler notes that much of this scientific data comes from “physical extrapolation”—i.e., “walking back” using current cosmological trends and direction, and timing. This is using a theory called “uniformitarianism,” the idea that you can safely walk back millions of years, assuming that physical processes measurable now have always been measured the same, so you can measure them the same way in the past. 

It’s easy to blow holes in that; processes can’t be measured back with accuracy that far, because they don’t stay the same.  A perfect example is the Flood.  Despite how scientists suggest it was a local phenomenon, Scripture says it covered the whole earth, above the tops of the mountains.  (Every ancient civilization we’ve “dug” had a story of a gigantic flood; if it were local, that wouldn’t have happened.  Are we supposed to believe that all the writers’ imaginations from different points on the earth thought the same “fantasy” at the same time? No, because it’s not a fantasy—it really happened).  Imagine how that Flood moved the strata; imagine the tremendous pressure under 25,000 feet of water; God could have generated oil in that one year.  Ask any submariner about water pressure 5 miles down; he gets real nervous.  Obviously things were not “uniform” (as science assumes) over the earth’s history. 

For instance, it’s possible that the weather changed tremendously before and after the Flood. Christian scientists have proof all over the earth by digging up well-preserved mammoths and such that the Flood flashed a tidal wave of Ice Age freezing and a tsunami of frozen mud that preserved ancient creatures; you can even see their blood vessels.  Their fat, their skin, clearly show that they lived in the tropics—but they were discovered in the Arctic.  So, no uniformitarianism on weather.  Consider how the sun’s rays could gigantically differ before and after the Flood, assuming that the sky was blanketed with clouds, which then emptied themselves.  That, it so happens, affects Carbon-14 dating, relied upon by scientists today to back up dating their speculations.  Carbon-14 is from cosmic ray action, which is used to date bones and such. They like to assume cosmic rays have been uniform, but they very likely weren’t. (Carbon-14 is only good dating things to 60,000 years back, as scientists will admit; why they publish really old dates for some bone “using carbon-14” is an outright lie.)  Scripture also records a drastic drop in average life after the Flood compared to before, which suggests that there were heavy clouds sheltering us from toxic rays of the sun before the Flood, but we’re exposed to now, so it shortens our lives. 

Dr. Mohler now backs up and asks “why are we asking this now?”  His answer is the liberal shifting going on amongst “Christian” intellectuals and seminaries who are swallowing modern science whole (even though it is populated by anti-God agnostics) and which leads people to not trust God or Christian evangelicalism.  Here are his cases in point:

1.      Bruce Waltke (Reformed Professor of Old Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary and four other Christian seminaries) made a video and said that unless evangelicals accept evolution, “we will be reduced to the status of a theological cult.” So our occult leader is Jesus.  The Pharisees had the same unforgivable sin, attributing Jesus’ miracles to the occult Devil. 

2.      John Stott (Anglican cleric, at one time at the forefront of the evangelical movement) in the 1980s suggested that Adam was “an existing hominid” that God plucked out of evolution’s slow progress as it went from hominid to hominin to homo sapiens, going from ape to man. Thus, God adopted him instead of creating him.  God then ensouled him. (But that would suggest that God didn’t ensoul many of the same level of homo sapiens. Sounds like Calvinism “over the top” to me). He felt that Protestant beliefs became, unfortunately, “inward looking.”  He was on a “holistic mission” to merge Christianity with secularism as much as possible.  Scientists may have liked parts of Stott, but never will a scientist suggest that God gave him a soul; that would be to suggest that he was in the image of God. Maybe they’ll admit that if there were a God, He just gave Adam improved surroundings.

3.      Denis Alexander (on National Committee of Christians in Science for almost 30 years, a prolific writer for Huffington Post, et al.) in his book, Creation and Evolution:  Do We Have to Choose (spoiler:  the answer he gives is NO) has an intriguing quote: “God in His grace chose a couple of Neolithic farmers (!) to reveal Himself in a special way…so they might know Him as a personal God.”  This “scientist” has obviously with such a quote won acceptance by his brothers. But the quote is an Insulting, Non-redemptive, and vague and aloof pronouncement.  Thus he reveals more “scientist” and far less Christian.  Don’t expect balance between those two; there isn’t any. “Christians in Science” is largely an oxymoron.  As any history buff will tell you, from World War I; middle ground is only for dead people.  Our Congress is learning that too.

I could go on and on about other weak “evangelists,” but let’s comment quickly on the mainline scientists:

Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens are the “four horsemen of new atheism.”  Three of them are scientists.  Dawkins said that Darwin has allowed him to become an “intellectually fulfilled atheist.”  They argue that evolution is the “final nail in the coffin of theism (belief in God).  Of course, they cannot answer the simple question: “Where did the original matter come from?”  You can’t generate a big bang from nothing.  Here’s a scary quote:  Dawkins says that deniers of evolutionary theory “should be scorned and marginalized as Holocaust deniers.”  He blathers on to say that it is “arcane” if anybody still call evolution a “theory.”  It is a fact that no intelligent person can deny.  Evolution is “the universal acid.”  It destroys every belief we have about Christianity and creation. 

So you can see that the scientists are cocky.  You need to also learn that the intellectual elites are also puzzled, since the belief in evolution is still a minority among North Americans and Europeans, and seems even to be in decline.  Dr. Mohler cites an article in the New York Times, where the author concludes: “I am frightened to live in a society where there are more people who believe in the virgin birth than in the fact of evolution.”  You’ll be even more frightened on Judgment Day, friend.  

The intellectual “Christians” also urge us to get with it:  Dr Peter Enns, a frequent author writing in BioLogos (an outgrowth of Biola “Christian” University) says we will “lose credibility in sharing the Gospel if we do not shed ourselves of our anti-intellectualism.”  Well, in partial answer to that, evolution suggests millions of deaths of half-ape/half-men (of which we can’t find a single bone without hoaxing).  But Scripture clearly indicates Adam brought about sin, and that led to death. (Romans 5:12).  This placement of death is extremely important; shall we shoot the lethal effects of sin backwards a million years, and throw away a critical part of the Gospel?  Scripture says death was after Adam.  Evolutionists say it had to happen before Adam.  Which do you believe?  Upon Adam is the whole doctrine of sin nature, and its dire result; it’s important to get that right. Go with Scripture.

After all this, what are our recalculated options?

1.      Creation was done in a sequential pattern of 24-hour days.  Its advantage: Its literal reading is easy to follow (sort of an Occam’s Razor effect).  It is strongly suggested by “evening and morning,” as I mentioned, and combined with Gen. 2:4: “this is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created.”  There are scientific proofs to the Scriptural order of events, too (See AnswersinGenisis.org for a much better treatment).    

2.      The “Day-Age” view.  This says the Hebrew word “yom” (day or Day) does not always mean 24-hours.  Each “yom” could be millions of years.  God could have taken millions of years to do His thing.  It does not require evolution, but it leaves room for evolution.  All we’re trying to find out is, is the earth old? This version says that it’s old, so we can agree with science on fossil “records.”  So we agree with science—in part. (They would require evolution).

3.      The Gap theory.  This holds that millions of years ago, between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, there was evil, usually presumed to be the rebellion of God’s highest angel, who became Satan (see Isaiah 14:12ff) followed by a destruction of earth (did they have a fight?)—and then, Much later, a restitution.  (Blue letter Bible is my source.  I’m not saying they believe in it; they’re just expounding the view, like I am.)  After the earth’s orderliness is propped up again (but with scars), you read the rest of Genesis chapter 1:3. Note that evolution is not required here either.  The Noahic Flood then becomes the second divine destruction.  Many deaths occur before Adam, which is un-Scriptural, and I comment on it later. 

 

I have a problem with 2 and 3: first, because we look so eager to be bought out by the agnostic scientists (I have a blog on Pierre Tielhard de Chardin, a “scientist” who faked discoveries of Piltdown Man, etc; these are the kind of people they are.)  Do we really want to stretch the clear literal 24-hour days, or do we speculate on an undescribed, wiping out of the whole earth (wouldn’t God want to say something about that?), just so we can open the possibility of evolution grinding its way over the great length of time, or just to kowtow to “fossil records” (Christian scientists have an answer for that, too), just so we can be friends with the agnostic scientists, so we can be accepted in society as reasonable as “they are.”

4.      Finally, there are two options which are pretty much alike; the “framework” theory, that suggests Genesis 1 is not history at all.  It’s just a story, a literal way to express the providential creation by God.  We are not to trouble ourselves by length of time, or if they are sequential.  The fourth option also denies the historicity of Genesis, by suggesting that is simply a parallel ancient Near Eastern text, written for Israel.  It is a creation myth, a mythological rendering that marks the beliefs of the ancient Hebrews. 

Of all these options, only #1 necessitates a young earth.  And only a young earth maintains the historicity of Adam, from whom the entire doctrine of Sin, and of our sin nature, explains.  Dr. Mohler, who believes as I do that the Bible is God’s inerrant Word, asserts that #1 is his choice--24-hour days, even though it is scorned.  His quote: “It seems to me that God gave us this text with such rich detail and sequential development” so we wouldn’t think His Word is “vague” on specifics, allowing us to stretch the truth or to “speculate.” How can we take Scripture with such rich content, and accept a theory that ignores what God is specifically saying?  Anyway, I totally agree with him.  Of course, neither of us are scientists, so the scorning wouldn’t be by workmates  If you’re wanting more science, a beautiful explanation of the Flood occurs on Youtube—look for: www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRoQL7W5jg8&ab_channel=YoungEarthCreation

The scorning still would come, from people that we try to bring the Gospel to.  When you imagine Noah answering questions by neighbors asking about the giant boat he was making on land, he had many chances to speak about God and judgment and Old Testament Gospel (II Peter 2:5).  Scripture records that he didn’t save a single soul.  It was only his closest family that he was able to drag into the ark (I wonder if they even believed him).  This age has parallels; it is the Laodicean age, I believe (Rev. 3:14ff).  Many people say they are Christians, but they never consider reduction from the world, or changing their lifestyles of sin, or worry (or hear from their pastors) about judgment.  They are not concerned about pleasing or forming a relationship with God, or obeying Him.  This is hell-bound stuff (see John 15:1-6 for proof).  They are equally deceived, and will scorn us too.  Noah feared God (see Hebrews 11:7).  Nobody else did, and few people do now (Hebrews 12:28-29). 

Dr. Mohler maintains that there is a “theological cost” of attaching to the old earth theory, which progressive evangelicals are not thinking seriously about.  They are not concerned enough of the need for integrity in interpretation, or to consider what they are messing with (a warning is in Rev. 22:18-19). Every word in the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Let me lay out the main guts of the Bible they’re playing with:  We have, in Genesis 1-3, in as few words as possible, God’s redemption narrative:  namely, Creation, Fall, and Redemption (the last of these is in Gen. 3:15).  Looking at the first 3 chapters, I can see why he maintains that “the doctrine of Creation is absolutely inseparable from the doctrine of Redemption.”  The same themes, plus the Consummation (Judgment to Hell, or New Creation), run together in that order throughout the Bible.  Just as God had to kill an animal, and shed its blood, to provide a covering to wear for Adam and Eve’s sin, He knew from the earth’s beginning that the blood of His Son would have to be shed to provide a covering to protect us from His holy wrath now. 

Therewith, God shows us the answer to many questions: How everything came to be, and why.  (It also shows that God is not at fault for the sad condition on earth; He created the angel that devolved into Satan, knowing that the angel would fall.  Thus, all of us have freedom of choice: Do we think, or act, out of God, or of Satan? Do we give glory to God, or do we choose the world, and cause Satan to laugh in God’s face, for our sinful behavior, as he does as the Accuser in Job?  “It is a purposive account of why the universe was created.  In the theater of His glory,” He is demonstrating, even before Creation, He has a way of escape from what we deserve. In Redemption, His mercy and love as conquering all obstacles, even our sin before a holy and just God, if we would let Him.  A sovereign God creates each one of us with a soul, but being sinful we fall, but God has a plan, repeated over and over, for our release from the prison of sin.

I wouldn’t want to mess with that.  I wouldn’t want to distract people from God’s truth, by getting on any sidelight of evolution. Ride with the four horsemen into hell?  No thanks.

By the way:  you cannot argue that “multiple translation and copying introduces errors.”  As we find more ancient texts, they do not change one word of Hebrew, so there are not “other translations” to throw us off what is right in front of us.  I think God, on purpose, knowing when we first consider His Word, forces us into a decision right away:  we have to decide, do we want to accept the world or Him, right in the first chapter of the Bible. He may want us to accept things that are peculiar or run against society, but that’s what faith is all about. 

As you can see from above, we are opening, very widely, a Pandora’s box if we accept anything but 24-hour days.  I might add that scientists should do more study, and publish more articles, that seriously consider the Bible account. There is a lot of science backing up the Bible, but it is censored from the media, and it is done only by several dedicated Christians.  So they are automatically considered wacko, and “real scientists” won’t seriously read past Page One of their publications. 

Truth is, believers were the first wave of true scientists in the Enlightenment, because Scripture, heavily read at the time, teaches us that revealed nature is intelligible.  God, after all, told Paul in Romans 1 that His invisible attributes are clearly seen, and can be understood.  This verse was a spur to science by the believers.  When Galileo (1600) said that the believer ought to be accountable to the book of nature and to the Scripture, we only add this modification:  an idea is morally acceptable only if you start from the anchor of truth, Scripture, and measure happenings from that as your vantage point.  If they don’t seem to agree, you dig further.  Now, the opposite seems to be the quest. The Flood is the best case in point, totally wrecked by “scientists.” One could wish that today’s scientists knew what they are fooling with; God’s wrath is also revealed from heaven in Romans 1 (v.18), and one could also wish that they knew the eternal cost of distorting the truth.  Let’s give the relevant verses, which seems to fit most modern scientists so well:

 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, ¹⁹ because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. ²⁰ 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, ²¹ 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. ²² Professing to be wise, they became fools…who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. 

As is typical in the New Testament, “death” means hell.  Fools and hellbound. Such is the destiny of many scientists who suppress the truth of Creation.