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.

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 automatically upon being saved, 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 "that 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; we must "sow to the Spirit." God will then renew us, lifting our hearts. If we fail and do nothing for the Lord, and fall into "sowing to our flesh,"we might not reap everlasting life. When we have difficulty, 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 reveals that Paul had a troubling insecurity; "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" 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 proper 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,” which is doing the things of v. 29, is unforgivable. 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 on them, in Numbers 15, 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.”

Drawing back when things get tough is the opposite of what you should do. 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, and His Spirit. 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--especially if applied to God's people. That shows you do not love them.  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 your election to the ranks of the saved "sure."

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.

Note that these people "escaped the pollutions of the world" at one time through "the knowledge of the Lord." Sounds like they were saved. BUT how did they get to "the latter end is worse?" By becoming entanged in the things of the world after their salvation. 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. Oh, you ask, why is it “worse for them than the beginning?” Because they lose salvation. This makes evangelising them doubly hard, since Christ "let them fail" and He became a disappointment to them. He does not promise a bed of roses.

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 properly. 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 of known sin is necessary. 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. From His Word we learn to know--and love our loving God. I’m not talking about “Love God, love your neighbor, that’s enough.” God 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 people: 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 allegedly “Christian” denominations are adding to the Bible, and people give them equal status to the Bible.  Those authors, leaders, and congregations (speaking here of Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses) are mostly bound for hell, unless they repent, because they have placed God and His Word second; they believe a man first, not God. 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.

In summary, the word "IF," as applied in the above verses, add conditions to remaining saved, and even suggest that it is possible to lose it. These verses do great damage to the belief in "eternal security." It is not my purpose to give you anxiety, or make you scared. I'm trying to warn you against the complacency and deception that you have your "insurance policy" to heaven, your "easy believism."

Acknowledgement: Dan Corner, The Believer's Conditional Security 

The Curse of Complacency in the U.S.

 There are three cultural and religious conditions in America that mix together into a toxic formula that will severely reduce our power in the Lord, unless we take deliberate action.  Let’s name them and tell what toxic results the admixture leads us to.  Here are the components:

1. HIGH RELATIVE INCOME.  America has the second highest average family wage in the world. In 2022, it is estimated at $77,500.  Luxembourg, a small country with rich people in finance, government, and lower tax among Europe, is first.
2. BELIEF IN ETERNAL SECURITY—“once saved, always saved.” A rapidly-growing phenomenon
3. BELIEF THAT CHRISTIANS WILL BE RAPTURED BEFORE THE 7 YEAR TRIBULATION. This is called the pre-trib rapture theory. Its opposite is the post-trib theory, belief that Christians must endure the tribulation before being raptured.  Pre-trib belief is a growing phenomenon as well.

 

So, what is the result, in most cases, from mixing these three elements together? You won’t like what I think is the answer: COMPLACENCY--“a feeling of being satisfied with how things are and not wanting to try to make them better…especially when accompanied by unawareness of actual dangers or deficiencies”

You have to admit, if you're living well, if you're sure of heaven, and if you think the Last Days talk going around won't hurt you because you're "outta here" before then, you will be leaning to complacency, "being satisfied with how things are." Well, Scripture actually teaches that that is bad, because of the second phrase of the definition: "not wanting to try to make them better."  But God wants us better; to be more like Him. And to bear fruit. So He needs to prune us to make us bear fruit. Look at John 15:1-2:

“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. ² Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit.

If you want to continue abiding in the Lord, these verses say you must be pruned. Your only alternative choice is, not to accept pruning, which means you ultimately will not bear fruit. The plant (speaking of people, too), without regular pruning, will become wild and unruly, ultimately ugly. Any gardener will tell you, doing the pruning appears to hurt the plant. I had a bush that was outstanding. I would seriously shape it, which meant I would have to shave much its current batch of flowers off. It didn't look great trimmed down so much.  I sure hated doing that. But invariably, the plant produced even more flowers. Pruning paid off. But look at John 15:5b-6, if you don't allow God to prune you so as to produce fruit:

He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. 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.

It's obvious that the fire and burning is a reference to hell. All this is to say: God is not happy leaving you in the same spiritual condition as when you were first saved. Let that sink in.  Pruning makes you different: you can become more like our Lord, and loving Him more. You can withstand the difficulties in life because you learn faith and patience.  On the other hand, if you go to the same church and hang around with the same friends; if your spiritual life consists of reading some Daily Bread, tithing when you have some extra money at the end of a month; and you are not a participant in anybody's spiritual life because your conversation to your kids' troubles comes from your rational wisdom; if you pray generally for the nation to eliminate evil, and keep you and your kids safe, and if your conversation avoids religion as confrontative or bringing on anxiety, then you, sir or ma'am, are likely not growing, and not bearing fruit. That, if you actually believe the Scripture above, is a bad way to be. Like most nominal Christians, you probably believe in, or fall in, the three conditions I outlined above, and you think of yourself as a stable person, not guilty of silliness, and not capable of evil--so your are set for heaven. The problem is not how you would be called the "frozen chosen." The problem is, to grow, you have to reach out and explore and do something on faith. Sometimes you fall on your face. Just brush yourself off, pray with fasting, asking God why your effort did not automatically become gloriously successful; He should give an answer. Seek your spiritually mature friends for advice, too.

So we are talking about #2 and #3, on theology (knowing God). That word scares people; they think they're not smart enough, and the pastor is smarter. Well, just think about all the issues about which denominationalism divides us. How could every pastor have it right, if the theology of Free Will Baptists are the opposite from Presbyterians on some fairly major points? One pastor has to be right, the other has to be wrong. You may argue that "it doesn't make a difference if both congregations have the same percentage of people going to heaven."  That may seem so NOW, but the Bible predicts a day is coming when the Antichrist will rule the earth in blasphemy.  The pastor that was right, got his people prepared for that eventuality (by NOT preaching on pre-tribulation rapture). So he keeps most of his congregation. But the other pastor, who did preach pre-tribulation rapture, I can guarantee, will lose a lot more people. They are not "outta here" as they expected. They were not trained for the possibility of suffering, even giving their life for the Lord. They may think, hey, I only believed in Him while things were good. Well, we call those bail-outs Apostasy. And people that leave the faith because their pastor wasn't truthful in his Bible studies will see a lot more of his people apostatizing, and they more likely will end up in hell. THAT's important, isn't it?  We don't need to feel our shepherd pastor  has led us down a primrose path.

Maybe the first thing you could do is, after prayer, after studying to learn how to approach serious Bible study, and having a Bible with connecting verses in the margin, or having a Strongs (these are available online), you start with the assumption that you don't HAVE to believe that your denomination, your favorite church, has all the right doctrines. I have a few blogs on eternal security and pre-tribulation rapture, with lots of Scripture, on this website. But here's a dare: Go to You Tube, listen to a relevant sermon at a .75 playback speed, listen carefully, note the Bible verses, on OTHER belief systems besides eternal security and pre-tribulation rapture. In You Tube's Search mode, write "Arminius" or "Problems with pre-trib rapture." Start there. Try writing notes as the sermon plays without preassumed biases. And in deep prayer, ask God to show you which verses actually prove which doctrine. You may find some truths that your pastor doesn't. I'm not into passing ill will for pastors, but I do note in their explaining, they might have a lack of Scripture that actually proves their point. They were taught it in Theology class at college. They might have just memorized it. Do not seek your pastor until you've done some thinking on your own; you could be more unbiased than him. Another one: search You Tube for "sermon on eternal security" (only because the phrase is not in Scripture), and You Tube will have sermons on both sides of that doctrine. Once you listen in to a sermon  on the subject, You Tube will also give you lots more sermons on the same subject the next time you login. It won't hurt you to listen around, making notes, checking Scripture. (The cost for all this is zero; just hit youtube.com.)You can't go by what "feels" right. We tend to deceive ourselves there. God doesn't think like us. He may want you to suffer for Him--I'm sure that thought wasn't the first thing you thought of in doing something for Him. Think of Philippians 1:29:

God gave you the honor not only of believing in Christ but also of suffering for him, both of which bring glory to Christ.

It's possible you will conclue that #2 and #3 above are likely incorrect (because God doesn't want us to be leaning towards complacency--see my study on the Laodicean church below). Maybe, without the support you've imagined from #2 and #3, then you will feel less complacent than before. You may even be feeling a little fear; you may be asking yourself, "have I done any real fruit for Jesus?" So you quickly push away the thought and say, "God would not want me to express fear. This theology is wrong. Maybe that's legalistic, and I'm not under law." But I have another verse for you: Proverbs 9:10:

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom

Well, maybe you have a verse for me: I John 4:18

There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear

I wish more pastors, in their sermons, would explain these surface contradictions. Let me try. Say we grow in the Lord so that our time with Him is deep; we tell Him our troubles, we confess our missed opportunites, our sin. We sincerely repent, and we will study to find the "key" that tripped us into sin, and vow that we will take radical steps to not trip it in the future. Say we failed at stopping an addictive sin; we confess, we realize God still wants us close to Him; and we just start over. We look to Jesus as a friend, not as a harsh Master (He is not our servant, though, answering our prayers just how we like, either). We should fear, though, two things: 1) His hatred of sin. Think of Adam and Eve--one sin! brought disaster); and 2)getting away from an honest relationship with Him, by participating in unconfessed sin or floating along, not motivated to get closer to Him. IF we realize that it takes work to be close to the Lord (not just once-a-day prayer), but thinking often about acting on our gift for Him. What does the Lord want us to say to an unsaved friend, or to your spouse or child? I mean, let's say evidence shows he/she might be going to hell (you need to read Scripture to learn more; don't assume heaven since "they're a good person"). Think of it;  is there something more awful than hell? Are you not in awe of the terror of such an eternity? So, is there anything you can say to this person, or do, to kick them off the wrong path? For you to speak the  truth, when the culture speaks lies, that's good. That's love. Even if they get angry, at least maybe your words made them think. (You water the seed; another draws the harvest). Perhaps you have a global version of your help; you hate to see people trapped with a culture and religion of lies; what money can you give, that will send an evangelist their way, from a gospel organization, and speak repentance and faith to them from the Lord? If you do that, you have love too. Caution: If we try something new like that,  we might assume that God will be so proud of us that He will "fix all that troubles us"--but surprise, we didn't touch that person like we thought, or God makes things harder for us than they were before! That's when we get stoic. God has reasons for making things hard, but He doesn't have to tell me. And it doesn't mean I'm out of His will, or getting chastised for my past. No, your past is gone to Him. But your past might make it easier to sin. That sin requires confession and work to make you holy.

So, you began to think on others, not yourself, people near or far that are persecuted or can't get meals. You learned to be fearful of eternity if you did nothing. But you loved people, and that kind of love took away your fear. That resolves the "contradiction" in the two verses above. By acting in new ways, you feel yourself in His will, bearing fruit, being pruned. You learn to ride over difficulties without striking out at people, without feeling depressed and addictive. You learned patience. Let no "pastor" tell you that now since you have eternal security, no introspection is needed, no further confession is needed.  That's a lie. Consider II Corinthians 13:5:

Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you are disqualified.

That examination is not a one-time deal; it should be often. Obviously, in being close to the Lord, we should do our darndest to ask the Holy Spirit so we can have an objective self-examination. We might have a journal where we list miraculous things God has done in answer to our prayers--but we also have a list of our sins. So we don't forget. We might examine ourselves at the time of Communion (as it says in I Corinthians 11:27ff), but we need to do it more often. It should include confession. He loves us. He is not in the business of knocking us down (maybe our dad or mom did that), but Jesus wants to help us kill the sin. People are ignoring their sin nowadays, and they have no fear of God or of punishment in eternity. Remember, there is only one unpardonable sin (ascribing to Satan the work of the Holy Spirit). He can forgive all others, but we must truly repent.

Let's get back to complacency.  It is bad, because you're comfortable in "your box," but not exercising your gifts. But, stuck there, you don't exercise faith to reach out and take a chance on doing something extraordinary (extraordinary for you). You don't even look for sins that you repeat day after day. No fair saying, "That's the way I am--deal with it."

So I hope you dealt with #2 and #3, and the sins of complacency. Now let's talk about #1.

#1 is the income. How can large income add to a toxic mix of complacency? Did you know that high income, without God's advice in servicing it, is a possible curse? Why? First, you must know that Jesus had a lot of harsh words about rich people. That's one point against it for starters. Unfortunately, you probably also know that pastors will bend over backwards on those verses to say "it's all right if you're rich." Well, you'd think a pastor would explain that contradiction that they have introduced. I will try. Start with the assumption that you got rich legally; you didn't push anybody out of their home, etc. How should you feel about this windfall of riches? That God made me rich because I'm smart, or I'm definitely going to heaven because He smiles on me?  Well, Neither of those. The first thing to think about (remember, it's a curse otherwise), is this: You are to take that wealth as a sign that God has seen you fit to take on an increase in your responsibility.  How's that? Well, the money is not yours. It's God's; He's letting you be the caretaker. You are not to spend it as you would like to; you are to take His directions as to how to use it. Because riches are like the gold ring Frodo was wearing in Lord of the Rings "The Return." His reactions should be your reactions. He will not keep it. Very important. (And you won't, upon death). He was bent on actually getting rid of it, Because it was doing no good just hanging on to it. It is a huge temptation while he had it. Temptation to do evil will hypnotically entrance you--you will do things that you would never do, if you had no money to pay for it. Your connection with worldly things is far higher if you are rich. If you are wealthy, who knows the deceptive people who want to get you in on the latest easy-money deal? Frodo had to deal with a connection with the deceptive and killer Gollum who would otherwise had ignored him. You would likely start to think a lot more about owning more new worldly possessions. You must train yourself to be determined to get rid of it. How DO you get rid of it? By building up a treasure in heaven, not earth. By giving it away to charity. Continue to live a moderate life as before.  Begin to spend more than 10% to the Lord, if you are indeed wealthy (and have your debts paid off first.) You've heard that giving to the Lord is a loan, one that He will pay back, many times over? But, be careful--the idea is speaking of a payback in heaven, not necessarily while you're on earth.

If perchance, God should give you excess income, you can either spend it, or you can save a lot of it, by living modestly. Saving it can be a curse too. Jesus emphasized not worrying about material possessions (Matthew 6:25-34), so you don't need a half million dollaars of savings to feel comfortable in the Lord. If you save a lot, you might be tempted to act on a gambling addiction. You start that by refusing the 5% from CDs or Treasuries. You feel you "have to" invest it in volatile stocks, especially bitcoin or what some analyst recommends (whom you never knew before). This is not building treasures in heaven--unless you will a chunk of your estate to a charitable organization--I hope you know someone on the Board of Directors, who isn't a gambling addict themselves.

More likely, your determination to put it all in savings might be "to keep me safe in case something goes bad." But who is your estate Defender? God. You should only have a minimum of savings; give the rest away to charity.  Maybe you save it for the kids or family members. Do you see problems in that? I do. If riches are a temptation of the world, if your kids are not trained in Scriptural integrity; then you have spread to them a giant temptation, a big curse. I have a blog on solving the problem, titled something like Radical: Give the Excess Away. There's Biblical proof in it.

But a bigger problem, for the moderate incomes, is what families are willing to do to pay off debt, or acquire some savings. Too Many Couples assume the only way to succeed is if both spouses are working. Do you see problems yet? Well, studies show that in every low-income country, people have lots of kids. In high income families, they have way fewer kids. So, by both working, that usually means people are likely missing out on the greatest thing ever--children. Don't let TV or the culture convince you otherwise. Kids also keep married couples married, so their vows to God can be true. Couples that have seperate incomes develop separate interests, and their spouse doesn't give them enough time (they're both tired from work), so they become boring to each other. That increases the chance of unfaithfulness or stimulation from alcohol, etc.

But what happens if only one spouse is working? Would it offend you if I suggsted the husband should carry that ball? The wife is a (gasp) homemaker; she gets to be with the kids and enjoy watching them grow up, and teaching them Scripture applications. But how does the couple survive on one income? Only one way: cut the expenses to third world level. Oh, no--you may not even know--what does the phrase "cut expenses" even mean?? Counter-cultural I go. (Hey, most of Jesus' advice WAS counter-cultural). Everybody else loves materialism; they expand expenses if the income is higher . Adopting a third world living environment so you can give to the Lord might mean one TV, one phone in the house, no "toys"--i.e., no boats, jet skis, etc.) And no buying that vacation home, or renovating your home "just because I want to express myself" or "yeah, the present stuff works fine, but I'm bored with it. Let's renovate or move!" Moving is expensive. You'll move up, of course, meaning you have less equity in the house (to pass on to the kids, or maybe to the Lord), so your utility bills, your real estate taxes, your house insurance, are higher. And there's moving expenses, plus "new friends" (but is it even possible to have the deep friendship level away like you had where you grew up?).

Maybe, instead, you may actually, for the Lord, pass up on a promotion that would uproot you. Not having roots is bad, plain and simple. With tried-and-true friends, you're a more ffective evangelist for the Lord. Your words have more "gravitas." Their advice to you is more likely "right on" because they really know you.

About spreading your income. It can make the difference between heaven and hell for somebody. Let me explain. Let's say the gift  the Holy Spirit gave you is giving to the Lord's work. Remember this: God may not want you to give it all to your kids. I don't know how many nasty fights I've seen in "who gets what," even about some ridiculous item. When it comes to coveting what mom and dad may leave when they die, there have been some horror stories. May God keep us from coveting, or causing other people to covet, and putting up a wall with a brother or sister. God will honor us if we act with integrity. Having a spiritually immature person in a situation of inheritance will bring on anger, coveting, cheating. Just avoid all that, and give it all to the Lord. If you are dividing your estate among your kids, but one child needs it a little more, it may be because they served the Lord in giving poorly, and the Lord is returning the "favor." Ask the Lord about if you should feel obligated to give different amounts to different kids.

I have a suggestion for your giving to charity: You need to think globally. In the U.S., you may have people that only get one meal a day. True. But there are a lot of places in the world that they have zero meals a day. They are being persecuted by Muslims, or Hindus, who want to kill them. Try to get past the hatred for immigrants of the world. Many of these people are simply running because their home areas  are run by drug runners, so gunplay is everywhere, or their nation is run by corruption, so justice is not there. Pray, and consider going for the organization or country that is the purest aspect of "love your neighbor."

So let's summarize the three toxic elements that a lot of people in America have:
High Relative Income. If well-off people have any “religion” at all, the most-frequent assumption they make (if they call themselves "Christian"):  “God gave me high income because He loves me.  As Deuteronomy 28 shows, He blesses those who follow Him.  So since I am blessed, He must love me, so I’m heaven bound.”  Well, that’s Old Covenant, or Old Testament. Some of those rules got wiped out in the New Covenant.   Jesus introduced the rules for rich people in the New Covenant.  Let’s look at the new rule: Matthew 19:23-24:

Then Jesus said to His disciples, “Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. ²⁴ And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

Let’s make sure we understand this:  Jesus was saying, it’s more difficult for a rich person to be saved-- than a middle or lower income person.  So if few, overall, find the narrow way to salvation (Matthew 7:13-14), then America, with a larger number of richer people, would actually be lower in saved people than whatever the "few" figure is. So, America is a nation with 'way more unsaved people, and has a larger portion of unsaved instead of saved people. Did you have that impression before? (Over 60% claim they are "Christian.") I did, because of how easy the traffic is to get to church, how many churches are starved for help, how many churches preach "easy believism." People are easily able, in a group of 300 or more, to achieve anonymity. Congregants put on a face. Many people have grievous sin, but nobody knows.  Couples come in for the 9 am service, and they're not married. Maybe they are practicing sexual immorality. Nobody knows.

Rich people have a big problem; they get involved with the world, and love its comforts.  But Jesus says they can't love the world and also love God (Matthew 6:24). Matthew 6:19-20 further says:

 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; ²⁰ but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.

Consider Matthew 13:22, where the Sower of the world has many failures and only one success; here is one of his failures:

²² Now he who received seed among the thorns is he who hears the word, and the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful.

What kind of “deceitfulness” did the Lord mean?  Maybe assuming riches will make you happy? But rich people have more divorces, and more difficulties with the grown-up kids. Or maybe "since I'm rich, I can handle any difficulties that come along with my wallet." Another way of saying, "I don't need God." We should say, about all our wealthy incomes, “God, through no particular reason on my part, allowed me to be rich—what does God want me to do with this special gift He has given me for Him?”

Let’s move on to the second cause of the cultural disaster of: Belief in eternal security.  Supposedly, to feel good about salvation, all you have to do is say, “I was saved at a youth camp in the summer of 2022.  And I've lived a pretty clean life since.  So I’m saved forever.  No need to worry about hell. So I’m Rock Solid about Eternal Security."  (Definition:  I’m as complacent as I can be).  "Pastor told me so."  Well, God bless that pastor.  He will have to give an account for his deception.  Scripture is full of verses that clearly indicate that security is conditional on your fruit, from holiness.  I have a three-part blog on this one:  Escaping Hell (Part 1), and Do Peter, James and John…(Part 2) and Do Paul…(Part 3).  Or, try several hours of reading all of the four Gospels, focusing on Jesus' words about salvation. Believe that Jesus means what  He says. Read it over and over, until you are convicted, and change a few things--or change your beliefs. And listen to theology sermons on You Tube

Now we move to the third of the triad causing our country’s massive complacency:  The pre-trib rapture doctrine.  (By the way, I used to be in all three of these camps before.  But I’ve always been a reader, and He led me to some good reading material.)  I only have space to give you one difficulty with the pre-tribbers:  Their theology has Christians being raptured, without any pre-indicators, before the end-times tribulation.  The horrible things of those last tribulation days—wars, famines, earthquakes, massive persecution and martyrdom—will happen on earth while you’re "enjoying" heaven.  The Holy Spirit, a Comfort and a witness of His grace to non-believers, will not happen to your friends and unsaved relatives, because you will be gone, and unable to help them when they need you the most.   Thus, a “Christian” who believes this theology, will be effectively saying, to his unsaved relatives and friends:  “You should be saved as I am.  We can leave this scene and leave non-believers to suffer the greatest misfortune of their lives without us.  When they need us the most, Jesus takes us out of here.”  You know what the thinking non-believer will think when hearing this raw explanation of the pre-tribber mindset?  “Oh, sure; you want me to believe in a theology of abandoning people I care for, a theology of complete selfishness.  Is that what Christianity is?  You can keep it, my un-friend.”

Another fact is, the pre-trib rapture theory is not a historical Christian belief; the idea was created around 1830.  It’s the opposite of the “post-trib” theology that was believed by almost all "futurist" Christians for 1800 years before that.  The predominant historical belief was, Christians will have to hang around through the end times and suffer, and possibly giving their life for Him.  So this newer pre-trib idea says, in effect:  For the first 1800 years, when the greatest minds that Christians had, from men close to Him, people who changed Rome, they all believed wrong, because they believed Jesus had two Advents--Jesus at birth and Jesus at resurrection and judgment.  The “truth” is, the pre-tribbers say, Jesus is having 3 Advents—at birth, at His return in judgment, and a previously unknown middle one, a secret rapture of Christians living then. Of course, there isn’t a single solid Scripture to prove it, but if you twist some Scripture like a pretzel, and compartmentalize others, you’ve got this "great theology that people love to hear about, without real study, so it must be true! All those 1800 years, those guys were all wrong.  We have it right now—the subtitle for our theology is:  Good Luck, the rest of you: when things start to heat up, We’re Outta Here!"
If that isn’t a complacent theology, I don’t know what is.

So there you have it.  Three corrupting effects among most "evangelical Christians”

My claim that many of those who say they are saved, and follow these three doctrines,  aren’t saved at all. They are unaware because they are complacent. Remember, too, the last part of the definition of complacency--“unawareness of actual dangers.” As I have given and read many testimonies of these things, pastors and church leaders do not have enough respect to even check other theories out. They evidently feel so good in their current belief system, that rocking that boat is a threat to their good feelings. They do not know God, in many cases. "Let's keep it as is, God seems to be pretty good to me right now."

My final word: Look at what Jesus said to the church at Laodicea (Rev. 3:15-19):

 “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. ¹⁶ So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. ¹⁷ Because you say, ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’—and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked— ¹⁸ I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. ¹⁹ As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten.[l] Therefore be [m]zealous and repent.

Why would God wish they would be either cold or hot? Because if they were cold, they would be a good ground for evangelism IF you actually speak on sin, and the terrible destination of the un-repentant, they would clearly know that they have sinned, They know that they avoided God, and they realize the need for repentance. Getting saved is possible for them.  Obviously, not a problem if they were "hot" for the Lord, that's self-explanatory. But what makes the "lukewarm" people make Jesus want to vomit them out of His mouth? (That separation from Him means the lukewarm are unsaved). Well, they said they were rich, they said they "have need of nothing." Doesn't this sound like complacency that I've been talking about? It sure does. But Laodicea was one of two churches that got zero words of commendation, out of 7 churches. So this church hasn't done anything much for the Lord, it looks like. God wants them to refocus on what "rich" really is; to get "rich," it costs something (as you can see by the phrase "refined in the fire"). They are stuck in the world (they need white garments to be clean; they should feel shame), they need to be zelous to repent of evidently many sins. Right now they are blind, naked before Him, in shame, so it doesn't look like they are saved.

So that's the danger of complacency. If you have those two doctrines, and/or you are above average in income, truly examine yourself. A careful reading of the Gospels clearly shows, Jesus has expectations of His followers. Floating along, enjoying His "love," is not where it's at. Don't go by feelings; go by His Word. You could be deceiving yourself to claim that you are saved.

As Forrest Gump once said, "that's all I'm going to say about that.'

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.

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….

Dr. Mohler stresses that the emphasis on each "evening and morning" strongly suggests two things: 1) there was a sequence of creation, 2) Scripture strongly suggests seven, 24-hour days.  If you start with the seven 24-hour days, and then add up generations in Scripture, and their lifetimes, it also suggests the creation of man was under 7,000 years ago; so it disagrees with what scientists surmise, which is that homo sapiens have some 200,000 years as an intelligent being.  But a study of population growth using the "scientific" view 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, given past trends (we tend to repeat wars, famines, with regularity). 

The younger earth, as suggested by Scripture, was believed almost unanimously by the church until the early 1800s.  But 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, led to questions.  Fossils, and their strata, "seemed" to be telling a story different from Scripture, per the scientists of that day.

2)     Then we had the emergence of Darwin’s publication on evolution, in 1859.  Dr. Mohler reminds us that evolution was only a hypothesis already in circulation before Darwin; and since he really was motivated by pushing it and not Scripture, he therefore was not using scientific protocol in his level of assertion.  A true scientist approaches a theory objectively, with no favorites. It's also true that science relies on repeatable observed events, so it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a theory of creation (since it is non-repeatable) that advances any further than speculation.  To suggest anything further is not science, nor is it objective. It is tainted by the hypothesist's bias. 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)     They discovered 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. There are a hundred reasons why the Bible is so far superior to the others, but they didn't explore that.

4)     The development of higher criticism 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 (with no thought about how supernaturalism does provably exist).  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 and Jesus asserts. The books have different writing styles (their proof on that 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. So they deny God's Word because they deny God, or they deny that He is interested in humanity--a low version of God's love for us, His creation. They can't accept God had a purpose in creating us. That's a low opinion of mankind, too.

Here's a case in point: The Book of Daniel, since it is filled with prophecies that came true after he died—is clearly implying these prophecies had to come from God, who knows the future--because of the specificity of the prophecies.  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 "prophet" Daniel.  Did you readers know that Wikipedia uses modern scientific cohorts for what they call "truth," and has constructed the name “Bible Wiki” to its version of the bible, which are often anti-God?  They also say that part of Daniel is “legendary,” which suggests old-age oral transmission, thus full of errors.  Of course, they don’t point out which part was “legendary,” but that way they get away with smearing Scripture anyhow, while avoiding confrontation if they were called out.

Let's point out a sore spot for science; they like to state a "truth"--but then they have to change it later. So science is a moving target, changing  dates and order when new knowledge arises.  Over the years, the universe’s birth date has been changed to 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. That way they don't have to believe in a soul, or belief in a Higher Power's judgment over us.  Of course, that’s just the way they like it. So even if we never see any bones suggesting such linkages or changes (and there ought to be millions, according to their theories), they insist we believe in science, not God, because they want us to be illogical and 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. I hasten to add that the Big Bang theory is only 90 years old, and it began from a Catholic Jesuit, Georges Lemaître. A warning: other blogs show you I don't trust those men. 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. Except evolution, of course, since leapage into other "kinds" ignores"uniformitarianism." 

It’s easy to blow holes in uniformitarianism; processes 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 even 2000 feet down; he gets real nervous.  Considering the changes that could be made under miles of water, we don't have to believe things were “uniform” (as science assumes) over the earth’s history. 

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 dig them out and see their blood vessels.  Their fat, their skin, clearly show that they lived in the tropics—but they were discovered in the Arctic. No, they didn't float. I'm saying the temperatures in the Arctic were different before the Flood. 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 effected from cosmic ray action, which is used to date bones and such. They like to assume cosmic rays have been uniform, but they weren’t. (Carbon-14 is only remotely accurate 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 human life after the Flood, compared to before, with people living over 800 years, which suggests that there were heavy clouds sheltering us from toxic rays of the sun before the Flood, but we’re exposed to them now, so it shortens our lives. 

Dr. Mohler now backs up and asks “why are we asking all 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.  Well, the Pharisees had the same unforgivable sin, attributing Jesus’ miracles to the occult father, Satan. 

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”--ie, separated from the real world.  He was on a “holistic (combining) 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 men 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--thus denying the truth of Scripture), 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, with such a quote, won acceptance by his scientific brothers. But the quote is an Insulting, Non-redemptive, and vague and aloof pronouncement.  Thus he reveals more “modern scientist” and far less Christian.  Don’t expect balance between those two approaches to data; there isn’t any. As any history buff will tell you from World War I; middle ground is only for dead people.  Our Congress is learning that too, as they try to please everybody on the subject of abortion.

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 formerly Christopher Hitchens (who has died) were 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.”  Ah, the elitist left, ready to mess with freedom of speech again. He says that it is “arcane” if anybody still calls evolution a “theory.”  It is a fact that no intelligent person can deny, they tell us.  Evolution is “the universal acid.”  It destroys every belief we have about Christianity and creation. 

So you can see that the scientists are cocky.  Dr. Mohler cites an article in the New York Times, where the elitist 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.”  So God and His Word are anti-intellectual. (Do these people fear God at all?) 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 a hoax), all before the appearance of Adam, or a person in his eon of time.  But Scripture clearly indicates Adam brought about sin, and that led to death. (Romans 5:12).  Scripture thus says "no death until after Adam." None of his "progenitors." 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? Evolutionists say death had to happen before Adam.  Which do you believe?  In God's Plan, it was Upon Adam that we have the whole doctrine of sin nature, and its dire result; it’s important to get that right in represting the Gospel. Go with Scripture, I say.

What do the "compromisers" say, who want to "respect" Scripture, yet be more "scientific"? Scripture does not leave ground to compromise: Consider Gen. 2:4, which bluntly says: “this is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created.”  There are many more scientific proofs to the Scriptural order of events, too (See AnswersinGenisis.org for a much better treatment).    

2.      We need to look at the compromiser theories, so we know what to expect in case we want to evangelize someone that tries to combine science and the Word. Let's start with their "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. That leaves them room to throw in evolution, which throws in death before Adam. Just because a million atheist scientists say something, I am not intimidated to deny my belief in God's Word, which has hundreds of prophecies that have come true, and a thousand other facts enshrining its supernatural truth. I will not deny my Lord who has saved me from hell. 

3.      The Gap theory. Let's observe Gen. 1:1, 2, written with the help of the words of Chuck Missler, an expert in Hebrew and real science:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. But the earth became 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

Looking at the underlined words, the verse should begin with "but," a better translation of the Hebrew. This suggests a change in the plan has interrupted. Since all God created was called "good" (see the verses above),  how did the earth become "without form and void?" Without form and void, could also mean "confused" and "waste," further emphasizing that a change has taken place from God's good creation. This all suggests there was possibly some disaster that possibly ruined the earth, making it confused and waste, and perhaps God started all over again, making another perfect earth for Adam and Eve.

Finally, since we assume God created the angels as obedient servants, when did He do that? Job 38:4, 6, 7 tell us that at the beginning of time; they were with God at creation:

“Where were you (Job) when I laid the foundations of the earth? ...Or who laid its cornerstone,
⁷ When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

As the Septuagint tells us (an Old Testament used by the apostles), the "sons of God" were translated "angels," which were there aat our creation, all worshiping God at His marvelous feat, as the verse says.  So all were obedient at that time, we can safely speculate. BUT, later, when God creates Adam and Eve, Eve is tempted by a "serpent," who  may have been beautiful and standing prior to the curse which made him slither on the ground. This serpent was the evil Satan. He persuaded Eve to be disobedient to God. As other Scriptures point out (see Isaiah 14:12ff), Satan was an angel--a fallen one, an evil one. So the big question is: When did some of the angels fall? Possibly it was during the "Gap" between Gen. 1:1 and 2, if we speculate that the earth was their environment. God judged earth when He judged their disobedience when they fell. Then God started from the "void" and "confused" earth; He props up its orderliness again (but with scars), so now you can read the rest of Genesis, beginning with chapter 1:3, for the "non-hidden" creation.

Note that evolution is not required under the "gap" theory either, but they will throw it in to make it appear they are scientific.  

Finally, there are two options which are pretty much alike in their anti-God symmetry; there is 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 other option goes farther; it denies the historicity of the entire book 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. 

But 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 creation was in six, 24-hour days, even though that belief 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 toss 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 our 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 see a single soul saved.  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 in people having no need of God; this is the Laodicean age, I believe (Rev. 3:14ff).  Many people say that they are Christians, but they never consider retracting 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 thinking (see John 15:1-6 for proof).  They are equally deceived, and will scorn us too.  Noah was peculiar; he feared God (see Hebrews 11:7).  Nobody else outside his family did, and few people do now (Hebrews 12:25). 

Dr. Mohler maintains that there is a “theological cost” of progressive evangelicals attaching to the "old earth" theories (the Gap and Day-age), which they 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 carefully picked words as possible, God’s redemption narrative:  namely, Creation, Fall, and Redemption (the redemption, in Gen. 3:15, tells that Eve, or a descendant of hers, was to bear a Son that would give a mortal blow to evil, and redeem man who loved God).  Looking at the first 3 chapters, I can see why“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.  

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 angels originally with the power to choose; some chose evil, and went to work for Satan. God of course knew that some of the angels would fall--because He gave His creation freedom of choice. Do we choose to follow God, or 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 (Job 1:6ff)?  “It is a purposive account of why the universe was created.  In the theater of His glory,” He is demonstrating, even before Creation, that He has a way of escape from what we deserve, and still be a Just God. In Redemption, we see His mercy and love as conquering all obstacles, even our sin--if we truly follow 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 those 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, that we might start with Genesis. He might introduce supernaturalism right away, and force us into a decision--supernatural, or rational?--right away:  we have to decide, do we want to accept the world or Him, right in the first chapter of the Bible. Faith in Him, or not? 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 the accurate reporting still goes on, but only by several dedicated Christians with smaller audiences.  So they are automatically considered wacko, and “real scientists” won’t seriously read past Page One of their publications. (Just try to write a graduate thesis that is "so non-scientific.")  There is a good book, with articles written by 50 different scientists, where they deal with the "clashes" of Scripture vs. "science." Evidence for God: 50 arguments for faith from the Bible, it's called. 

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. When the Catholics suppressed Scripture, people believed in superstition. The vast majority of people did not know that God 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.  Galileo, in the 1600s, said that the believer ought to be accountable to the book of nature and to the Scripture. We can only add this modification to improve on his statement:  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, simply as an explanation of Scripture.  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.