O foolish Landmark Baptists

Galatians 3:
[1] O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
[2] This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
[3] Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

The Landmark Baptist movement [the group that says the Baptist denomination is the one true church and that it alone has the authority to water baptize, take the Lord's supper, exist as a church, etc.] says that there is no such thing as baptism into Christ by the Holy Spirit, they say the only baptism for the present Dispensation of Grace is water baptism. They staunchly believe that the local church is the Body of Christ and that there is no spiritual church of all believers assembled in Christ. They are also vehemently against dispensationalism, they say that salvation and the gospel has always been the same throughout all ages. 

The most dangerous heresy of this movement is that it denies baptism into Christ by the Holy Spirit. They say that baptism into water is actually baptism into Christ. They take Romans 6:3-4, Galatians 3:26-28, 1 Corinthians 12:13, Eph. 4:5, and Colossians 2:12 as referring to baptism into water. Those are all the classic proof texts used by the Campbellite water dog "Church of Christ" and the Buptists in order to teach that water baptism is by immersion and that it pictures the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. They all use those references. 

The Campbellites admit to believing in baptismal regeneration, but the Buptists have not come out of the closet on that yet. Baptists as a whole profess to believe that salvation does not include water baptism, but I am not so sure about all of them. J.R. Graves, regurgitater of old Baptist Landmark doctrine, said in one of his books that water baptism cannot be separated from the gospel. Even though Paul said beyond the shadow of a doubt that water baptism has nothing to do with his gospel (1 Cor. 1:14-17). If water baptism "cannot" be separated from the gospel, then why isn't water baptism mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:1-4? There Paul said that the gospel was "how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures". No water there. Paul said "I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:2). Not to mention there is no water baptism in Acts 13:38-39, the first recorded sermon of the apostle Paul. 

Graves' problem was that he was the spokesman for the historical Baptist doctrine of the gospel always being the same in all dispensations so he failed to rightly divide the "gospel of the kingdom" from the "gospel of the grace of God" revealed to Paul. The gospel of the kingdom was that Millennial reign of Christ on the Earth in Jerusalem was "at hand" (Matt. 2:2, 3:2, 4:17, 4:23, 9:35, 10:7, 24:14, Mark 1:14-15, Luke 1:32-33, 1:67-79). The gospel of the kingdom was committed to the 12 apostles of Israel and it required water baptism among many other works (Matt. 10:5-7, 19:28, Mark 1:4-5, Luke 3:3, 7:29-30, Mark 16:15-16, Acts 2:38). The gospel of the kingdom is what will be preached in Daniel's 70th Week, the days of God's vengeance on Israel (Matt. 24:13-14, Luke 21:21-23). Water baptism couldn't be separated from this gospel (Mark 1:4-5, Mark 16:15-16, Luke 3:3, Acts 2:38), which is why J.R. Graves said what he did. His theology wouldn't let him learn the truth of the Bible, he wouldn't "rightly divide the word of truth" so he fell flat on his face. 

The gospel of the grace of God is what Christ revealed to Paul from Heaven to be preached during the Dispensation of Grace (Acts 20:24, Rom. 11:13). This gospel is "how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:1-4). FAITH ALONE in this gospel is what saves, to the exclusion of all works (Eph. 1:13, 2:8-9, Rom. 1:16-17, 3:19-28, 4:5, 5:1, Titus 3:5, 2 Tim. 1:9). Paul is the first one to say that a man cannot be justified by the Law of Moses (Acts 13:38-39) which is the exact opposite of the gospel of the kingdom (Matt. 19:17). This gospel was a direct revelation that Paul received from God (Gal. 1:11-12). That gospel was not even a THOUGHT in the mind of the 12 apostles of Israel who preached the gospel of the kingdom (Matt. 16:21-23, Mark 9:9-10, 9:31-32, Luke 9:44-45, Luke 18:31-34, John 20:6-10). That gospel was "hid from them" until Paul was sent by revelation to go up to Jerusalem and communicate it to them, which is when they realized that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to Paul just as the apostleship and gospel of the circumcision was committed to Peter (Gal. 2:1-9). They saw the "GRACE" that was given to Paul, the Dispensation of the Grace of God, the revelation of the mystery where saved Jews and Gentiles are one body in Christ (Eph. 3:1-9, 5:32, Col. 1:24-28, Rom. 11:15, 16:25). When Christ committed this gospel to Paul, he received exceeding abundant grace and longsuffering FIRST for a pattern to them that would believe the gospel after him (1 Tim. 1:11-16). The preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery was kept secret since the world began until it was revealed to Paul (Rom. 16:25, Titus 1:1-2, 1 Cor. 2:7-8) which is why he called it "my gospel" (Rom. 2:16, 16:25, 2 Tim. 2:8). Christ made him the pattern and apostle of the Gentiles (Rom. 11:13, 15:15-16, Eph. 3:1, 1 Tim. 1:11-16, 2:7, 2 Tim. 1:11, 4:17). Which is why we are told to FOLLOW Paul many times in the Bible (1 Cor. 4:15-16, 11:1-2, Phil. 3:17, 1 Thes. 1:6, 2 Thes. 3:7). Biblically speaking, you will not have understanding in all things if you do not consider what he says (2 Tim. 1:13, 2:7). 

Yet the Baptists, especially the Landmarkers, have based their entire religious system of John the BAPTIST. They do not even understand that John the Baptist did not preach the gospel of the grace of God and he did not preach to Gentiles. John the Baptist's baptism of repentance was not just a water ceremony, it also included CONFESSING your sins. This baptism has nothing to do with a Gentile living in the Dispensation of Grace. The Bible says what the baptism of repentance was for, to manifest Christ to ISRAEL. The Bible says who came to John's baptism, ISRAEL.

Acts 13:24 When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.

Matthew 3:
[1] In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
[2] And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
[3] For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
[4] And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.
[5] Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
[6] And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

Mark 1:
[4] John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
[5] And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

Luke 3:3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

John 1:31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

I have seen Baptists practice water baptism. They don't have anyone confessing their sins at the baptism. John the Baptist did. 

Landmark Baptists would also have a fit if you did not preach wearing a suit and tie on, but John the Baptist wore a camel skin. And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John...what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses. (Matt. 11:7-8). The Landmarkers are looking for men in soft raiment, they wouldn't have liked John the Baptist. 

So the Landmarkers have the wrong pattern, the wrong spokesman, they are following the wrong man. The Bible said to Gentiles under grace to be followers of Paul as he was of Christ (1 Cor. 11:1-2). Paul is your pattern (1 Tim. 1:11-16) and he is your apostle (Rom. 11:13). 

Hyper-Landmarkers even go so far as to say that the Dispensation of Grace began with John the Baptist, even though the Bible plainly says it was given to Paul (Eph. 3:1-9, Col. 1:24-28). John the Baptist was under the LAW and OLD TESTAMENT, he did not begin any Dispensation of Grace. The grace age was a GREAT MYSTERY HID IN GOD, KEPT SECRET SINCE THE WORLD BEGAN, NOT MADE KNOWN IN OTHER AGES (Rom. 16:25, Eph. 3:1-9, 5:32, Col. 1:24-28). But the ministry and message of John the Baptist was PROPHESIED in the Old Testament....

Isaiah 40:
[3] The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
[4] Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain:
[5] And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.    

Malachi 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to this temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.  

The mouth of the Lord had spoken of John the Baptist's ministry and message, not hidden it (Eph. 3:9, 5:32). John the Baptist did not usher in a new dispensation, he was not preaching anything new. The Jews already knew about his ministry from the OT prophecies of Elijah, who John came in the spirit and power of (Malachi 4:5-6, Matt. 11:14, 17:10-12). In fact, the Levites and Priests already knew and were expecting either Elijah or the Christ to water baptize (John 1:19-25). 

John the Baptist preached other works for salvation besides water baptism (Luke 3:3, Mark 1:4). He preached that if you did not bring forth good fruit (works) then you would be hewn down and cast into the fire. He taught the Jews that they would flee the wrath to come by bringing forth good fruit...

Matthew 3:
[7] But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
[8] Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
[9] And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
[10] And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

And the fruit is not "believing the gospel", John the Baptist said exactly what the fruit was. Good works. (Luke 3:11-14)

Luke 3:
[3] And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;
[4] As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
[5] Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth;
[6] And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.
[7] Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
[8] Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
[9] And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
[10] And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then?
[11] He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.
[12] Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do?
[13] And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you.
[14] And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

This doctrine goes right through one Landmark Baptist ear and out the other. They are not dispensationalists, they do not believe in rightly dividing the word of truth, and they never will. Once you get into the hyper-Baptist movement you can never come out, they have a cult-like control over their followers. 

As to this water baptism issue, not only did J.R. Graves say that it cannot be separated from the gospel, he also believed that being "born of water" in John 3:5 was a reference to water baptism, just like every Campbellite in the water dog movement. That is complete insanity, there is no water baptism in the context of John 3:5. When the Lord said "born of water" He was responding to Nicodemus's words "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" The reference is to a natural, fleshly birth, not water baptism (John 3:4-6). 

But the biggest heresy of the Landmark hyper-Baptist movement is that it denies baptism into Christ by the Holy Spirit. They say that baptism into Christ is actually baptism into water, just like the Campbellite "Church of Christ" (antichrist). They say that this water baptism makes you a member of the LOCAL church, even though the Ethiopian in Acts 8:36-38 had no local church and was baptized in the middle of a desert. Philip didn't even have time to invite the eunuch to church before he was caught away by the Spirit of the Lord (Acts 8:39). Paul baptized the Philippian jailer at midnight, no local church was involved. John the Baptist had no local church, but he baptized thousands of people (Mark 1:5, Matt. 3:5). Water baptism has absolutely nothing to do with a local church. Local churches are not even given the authority to baptize. The pastoral/church epistles do not even mention water baptism (1 Tim, 2 Tim, Titus). Local churches are not even specifically given the authority to water baptize. So to associate water baptism with a local church is plain ignorance and disregard of the Scriptures. 

This error is largely because the Landmark Hyper-Baptists believe that the church the Body of Christ is a local church, not a spiritual church of all believers assembled in Christ. But a local church cannot be the whole Body of Christ because there is only "ONE" body (Eph. 4:4, 1 Cor. 12:20). You cannot say there is only "one" local church! Furthermore, Paul was not a member of any local church, yet he included himself as part of the same Body of Christ as the Romans and the Corinthians (Rom. 12:4-5, 1 Cor. 12:13). When Paul wrote to MULTIPLE "churches" of Galatia he said they were all baptized into Christ and one in Him (Gal. 1:1-2, 3:27-28). 

"Paul, an apostle....And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia...as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 1:1-2, 3:27-28)   

The baptism into Christ is exactly that, baptism into Christ, not water. Making baptism into Christ water baptism puts the Landmakers on the same level of reasoning as the Campbellite. As soon as they see "baptism" they think "water!". 

The Bible says WHO performs baptism into Christ, and it is not a Baptist preacher.

The Bible says WHAT you are baptized into, and it is not water. 

1 Corinthians 12:
[12] For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
[13] For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
[14] For the body is not one member, but many.
[15] If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
[16] And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
[17] If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
[18] But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

Colossians 2:
[10] And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
[11] In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
[12] Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

The Bible says

• The believer is baptized into CHRIST
• The believe is baptized BY THE SPIRIT
  

The Landmark hyper-Baptist says

• The believers is baptized into WATER
• The believer is baptized by a BAPTIST PREACHER
  

Also, the Bible says that baptism into Christ makes your old man DEAD and crucified with Christ making you FREE FROM SIN. That can only be accomplished spiritually by the power of the Holy Ghost, not some BaPtist bubba dunking you in a buptistery. 

Romans 6:
[2] God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
[3] Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
[4] Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
[5] For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
[6] Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
[7] For he that is dead is freed from sin.
[8] Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
[9] Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
[10] For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
[11] Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

When the Holy Spirit baptized you into Christ, He joined you to the Lord making you "one spirit" with Him. You are crucified, buried, risen, and seated with Christ in heaven.

Galatians 2:20  I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Ephesians 2:
[6] And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
[7] That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

Colossians 3:1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.

No water ceremony can do that friend, and if you say it does then you are mighty close to being a Campbellite. 

Also, baptism into Christ has to be spiritual because it makes you neither Jew/Gentile/male/female/bond/free....that is SPIRITUAL, because in a physical water baptism people are still Jews and Gentiles, male and female. And it cannot be referring to them being without distinction in the local church, because men have authority over the women in the local church (1 Cor. 14:34-35, 1 Tim. 2:12). Therefore the only way that the statement, "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female" could make sense would be if it is referring to the SPIRITUAL standing in Christ. 

1 Corinthians 6:15,17 "Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?...he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit."

This is why I titled this post "O foolish Landmark Baptists". They are teaching that you are made perfect by the flesh.

Colossians 2:
[10] And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
[11] In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
[12] Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
[13] And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
[14] Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Verses 10 through 12 are one sentence. We are "complete" in Christ because we were spiritually circumcised (body of the sins of the flesh removed) and spiritually baptized into Christ. But since the Landmarkers say this passage is referring to water baptism, they believe that you are made complete in Christ by water baptism, a work! That puts them in the same category as the Galatians... 

Galatians 3:
[1] O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
[2] This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
[3] Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

The Landmarkers believe that you begin in the Spirit, but are not made perfect until you get water baptized. That is FOOLISH according to the Bible!

Nevertheless, the Landmark Baptists still insist that the Body of Christ is a local, visible assembly. They supply no scriptures to prove this. They use a humanistic logic. They say "Well since a church is an assembly, and all believers are not assembled together and will not be until the rapture, then the Body of Christ must be a the local church." 

The fact that the Landmark Baptists say this demonstrates their disregard for what the Bible actually says about the Body of Christ...

1.) All believers are assembled "IN CHRIST" (Rom. 12:4-5, 1 Cor. 12:12-18, etc.)

2.) All believers are assembled IN CHRIST and they are seated in HEAVEN (Eph. 2:6-7)

3.) The Bible defines what the Body of Christ is. It is the fullness of Christ that filleth all in all (Eph. 1:22-23). "All in all" is PEOPLE, not local churches. 

4.) The formation of the Body of Christ required the CROSS and it is the BLOOD of Christ that put you in it (Eph. 2:13-16). A local church could meet at any point in history regardless of the cross of Christ. Israel was the church of God in the OT (Acts 7:38). 

There is much more that could be said about the Landmark hyper-Baptist movement, but that is enough for this post. Landmarkers believe that their denomination is the one true church that has been around in every generation of church history and they do not believe non-Landmark churches are true churches. But the Bible called the Corinthian church a "church of God" even though they were fornicating, suing each other, disbelieving in the resurrection, misused the Lord's supper, and was full of heresy and division. Being a "church of God" is about whether your assembly is made up of saved people, not what doctrine, practice, or name they go by. 

--Eli Caldwell

Dr. Kent Hovind refuting the Gap Theory

Note: I do not agree with everything in this article. For example, I think saying that the Gap denies the purpose of the cross is a little extreme, but I do agree with his refutation of the Gap overall.
--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell

THE GAP THEORY
By: Kent Hovind

Introduction:

For 2,000 years, nearly all Christians believed and taught that the earth was approximately 4,000 years old as revealed by God’s Word. In the early 1800s, some unbelievers began to teach that the earth was "millions of years old."  This old earth teaching laid the groundwork for the evolution theory, which became popular a few years later.  In an effort to blend both beliefs, some theologians invented the "gap theory" which allowed "millions of years" to be placed between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

As this new gap theory began to be accepted by the church in the early 1800s, the majority of Christians offered little resistance.  This effectively "neutralized" them in the war between the Bible and the rapidly spreading world view of evolutionism.  This godless theory resulted in the rise of such philosophies as communism, humanism, and Nazism.  The acceptance of the gap theory opened the floodgates for these ideologies, which have caused untold suffering as well as hundreds of millions of deaths in the last two centuries.

We hope this booklet will help the reader see that the gap theory, which many well meaning people have promoted, is unscriptural, unscientific, unnecessary and is a dangerous compromise of God’s Word.

    --Dr. Kent Hovind

The Gap Theory
Genesis 1:1 & Genesis 1:2,
Are there billions of years between them?

    "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
Genesis 1:1-2

    When an author decides to write a book, it is of utmost importance for him to begin with a powerful and thought-provoking beginning. The author must do this in a clear and concise manner so that there is no confusion. God was no different in His approach to place His Word in written form. Within the first two verses of the Bible, He reveals to us with power and clarity the perfect triune creation, brought into existence by the perfect triune God.

    The simple fact, quite evident to all, is that something drastic and devastating happened to change God’s perfect creation, as described in Genesis 1:1, into the sin-stricken world that exists today. What exactly happened to bring this about, and more importantly, when did it happen? The answer to that question takes us to the very center of a controversy that has existed in theological circles for nearly 200 years. The controversy surrounds the first two verses of the Bible and a theory known simply as the "gap theory."

What is the Gap Theory?

    The gap theory comes wrapped in many different shapes and forms. There are as many variations of this theory as there are theologians to support it. Simply stated, the gap theory is the idea that a long period of time existed between God’s initial creation in Genesis 1:1 when "God created the heaven and the earth" and Genesis 1:2 when the earth was "without form and void." Most gap theorists believe that prior to Genesis 1:2 the "first" earth was inhabited by angelic creatures, such as Lucifer, as well as the mysterious dinosaurs. A pre-Adamite race of men is also thought to have populated the earth at this time. Many gap theorists teach that the world existed in this manner for millions of years, if not billions. The gap’s end is believed to have occurred when God, finding iniquity in Satan’s heart, was compelled to destroy the earth with a flood and make it "without form, and void" (Genesis 1:2). God then proceeded to "re-create" the earth in six literal days as described in Genesis 1:3-31. The gap theory, also known as the "ruin-restoration" theory, is displayed for illustrative purposes in the time line below.
   

    To resolve this controversy, an attempt must be made to understand the reasoning behind the gap theory. One must understand the history of the gap theory and the Scripture references used by the theory’s proponents. After grasping what the gap theory entails, one must then use the light of Scripture to attempt to validate or invalidate the theory (Acts 17:11). At the conclusion of this validation process, two questions will then be left to answer: Does the Bible teach the gap theory, and does it really matter whether the gap theory is taught or not?

History of the Gap Theory

    Before getting into the Scriptural aspect of this discussion, one needs to first understand the background and history of the gap theory. Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847), a notable Scottish theologian and first moderator of the Free Church of Scotland, is credited with being the first proponent of the gap theory. His proposal of the theory was first recorded in 1814 in one of his lectures at Edinburgh University. Until 1814, no theologian had put forth the idea of a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Chalmer’s teaching to a great extent reflected what was happening in the late 1700s and early 1800s.

    In 1795, James Hutton (1726-1797) introduced the scientific doctrine of uniformitarianism in his book Theory of the Earth. Hutton believed that the processes of the past (e.g. climate, sedimentation, decay, etc.) occurred at the same rate as those of the present--a way of thinking that was prophesied in II Peter 3:4 as a sign of the last days. Uniformitarianism is now summarized in the phrase, "the present is the key to the past." His questionable logic became the foundation for many of the "scientific" discoveries in the early 19th century. Hutton’s teachings most affected the field of geology, then in its infant stages.

    Following in the footsteps of Hutton, Charles Lyell (1797-1875) became known as the"high priest of uniformitarianism "and "the father of modern geology." Lyell’s famous three-volume work, Principles of Geology, quickly became the catalyst for the geologic movement’s move to uniformitarian principles. Many early geologists, after studying the numerous layers of sediment existing in the earth’s crust, assumed the layers were a result of the flood of Noah, knowing that moving water causes many layers to be deposited. Others claimed they had no idea as to how they were deposited. A few thought the layers were deposited slowly over millions of years at the same rate layers are deposited today. This slow but steady accumulation was thought to be an example of uniformitarianism. For hundreds of years, scientists in all fields of study had worked within a 6,000-year time frame for the age of the earth, primarily drawn from the chronology of the Bible. With the introduction of uniformitarian principles into science, geologists felt they finally had the answer to the mystery.


        Shortly after the publication of Hutton’s and Lyell’s books, Christians began to feel that they were under a scientific attack for their belief that the earth was only a few thousand years old. One has only to read the writings of Thomas Chalmers to understand how sharply he felt the attacks of science upon the Scriptures. Some geologists and theologians, knowing that the uniformitarian deposit of sediment layers would require millions of years, quickly rejected the Biblical age of the earth and moved to adjust the Bible’s time frame to coincide with their new theory. Chalmers, like many other Christians at this time, began to seek a way to harmonize the Genesis account of creation with the newly accepted teachings of geology. He attempted to do this with the gap theory.
   

    Since 1814, many theologians have followed Chalmers’ example and attempted to accommodate both Scripture and the new supposed science. In 1859, Charles Darwin’s book The Orgin of Species introduced scientists and theologians to the possibility of an even longer time frame for the age of the earth. For example, G.H. Pember stated in his book Earth's Earliest Ages, "There is room for any length of time between the first and second verse of the Bible. "Statements such as these pressured many Christians to accept other dangerous theories under the guise of "science. "Theologians struggled to remain current with popular scientific findings.
   

    The gap theory trend gained its greatest support in 1909 when C.I. Scofield first published his Scofield Study Bible. Dr. Scofield supported the gap theory in his explanation that "the first creative act refers to the dateless past, and gives scope for all the geologic ages." He commented that "no conflict of science with the Genesis cosmogony remains." Dr. Scofield also advocated the "Day-Age "theory--another "time-allowing" theory teaching that the six days of creation were not literal 24-hour days but actually long periods of time. The Scofield Study Bible, believed to be the most widely used study Bible of its kind, resulted in a widespread acceptance of the gap theory, which continues today.
   

    About the same time the Scofield Study Bible began its circulation, another very popular theological work was published, Dispensational Truth by Clarence Larkin. In his book, Dr. Larkin detailed the existence of a "chaotic earth "between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. His willingness to"fall back then upon Science "allowed science to greatly infiltrate his theology [Note his capitalization of the word Science]. This influence can be seen in the way Dr. Larkin embraced the "Nebular Hypothesis, "a predecessor of the "Big Bang" theory.

    Regardless of the reason, the gap theory has gained considerable support from several modern theologians. These theologians, such as Arthur C. Custance, author of Without Form and Void (1970), and well known preachers Billy Graham and John Hagee, have adopted the gap theory, in one form or another. For some, the gap theory is the only explanation they have to make the Bible fit their preconceived idea for the age of the earth. For others, it is the only way they can explain certain passages in Scripture.

What Scriptures are used to support the Gap Theory?

    Four main passages--Genesis 1:28; Isaiah 45:18; Jeremiah 4:23-24; II Peter 3:5-6--remain the battleground arguments for the gap theory.  Using specific Scriptural references, modern theologians have endeavored to support it.

    Genesis 1:28 is undoubtedly the verse most quoted by gap theorists. Genesis 1:28 "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." Much of the validity drawn from this verse centers on the usage of the word replenish. Gap theorists believe that this is God’s command for Adam and Eve to refill, or repopulate, the earth, assuming the previous inhabitants of the earth were destroyed in the Genesis 1:2 catastrophe.

    The problem that gap theorists encounter stems from misunderstanding the word replenish. The Hebrew word used here is male, which means, "to fill." In 1611, the time of the King James translation, English dictionaries defined the word replenish as "to supply fully, to fill. "Nearly a century later, a second definition arose,"to fill or build up again. "Most dictionaries still list both meanings. If the author of Genesis 1 had been attempting to convey the idea that God wanted Adam and Eve to repopulate the earth, He would have used the Hebrew word Shana, which means "to fill again."

Languages Change English words frequently change meanings over the years. In Romans 1:13, Paul said he wanted to come but was let, a word which used to mean "hindered," but today means "allowed." Forty years ago, the word gay was the common English word to mean "happy." James 2:3 "And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing,..."

    In recent years, Isaiah 45:18 has become the verse to which most gap theorists appeal in defense of their view. In fact, the New Scofield Reference Bible removed its gap theory footnote from its original place under Genesis 1:2 and placed it beneath Isaiah 45:18. Isaiah 45:18 "For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else." The debate concerning this verse surrounds Isaiah’s use of the phrase, "he created it not in vain." The words "in vain," translated from the Hebrew word tohu, also occur in Genesis 1:2 where it is translated "without form. "Gap theorists conclude that God did not create the earth without form (tohu), as described in Genesis 1:2, but that it became without form (tohu).

    Claiming that Genesis 1:2 was translated incorrectly, gap theorists believe that it should read, "And the earth became without form, and void." This attempt by gap theorists to question God’s ability to preserve His Word (Psalms 12:6-7) in the English language is one of grievous error. Nowhere does Scripture use the word tohu to describe a result of God’s judgment. In the Hebrew language, tohu means "not formed," not "formlessness resulting from a judgment." It must be noted that when the Old Testament was translated into the Greek language, the word chaos was available for them to convey this idea of judgment. To the detriment of the Gap Theory, the Greek translators chose not to use this word in either Genesis 1:2 or Isaiah 45:18.

    Gap theorists frequently quote Jeremiah 4:23-24 in their attempt to depict the desolate earth of Genesis 1:2. They believe that the prophet Jeremiah is describing in detail God’s act of judgment upon the "first" earth. Jeremiah 4:23-24 "I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly." The phrase "without form, and void" seems to imply an association with Genesis 1:2, but the word earth in this verse is not a reference to the planet earth. Earth in this verse refers to the land of Judah, as discussed in Jeremiah 4:7, 20 & 27, and not to the past at all. These two verses, when read in the context of the whole chapter, reveal the prophet Jeremiah’s insight into the coming destruction of Judah by the Babylonian armies.

Noah’s Ark is representative of our relationship in Christ. Just as Noah, we as Christians are in this world but not of this world (John 15:19; 17:13-16)

    The belief of most gap theorists is that II Peter 3:5-6 is not referring to the flood of Noah, but "Lucifer’s flood," that brought on the formless water-covered earth described in Genesis 1:2. II Peter 3:5-6 "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:"  No Scripture exists to support the idea that Peter was referring to "Lucifer’s flood. "With no references in Scripture to such an event, teachers of this opinion are guilty of "adding to the word of God."

    There are good reasons, however, to believe that Peter is referring to the flood of Noah in these verses. The only flood to which Peter had previously referred is the flood of Noah (I Peter 3:20; II Peter 2:5). If Peter were referring to a different flood, he most certainly would have done so with an explanation. The words, "willingly ignorant, "suggests that it is a flood that is well-known, yet one that they have rejected. Possibly these scoffers could be willingly ignorant of Noah’s flood even though there is a detailed description of it in the Old Testament and ample evidence for it all over the surface of the earth today. However, one could not be willingly ignorant of a flood that God had never revealed to them in His Word.

    Gap theorists also attempt to draw from the phrase in II Peter 3:6,"the world that then was . . . perished. "They interpret it to mean that at the time of Noah’s flood the world did not perish because Noah and his family were spared. They feel this fact points to an earlier catastrophe in which every living organism was destroyed. Actually, the world did perish during the flood of Noah as described in Genesis 7:23.

Genesis 7:23 says, "And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark."
   
    This verse does not include Noah and his family as part of "every living substance." God clearly had separated Noah and his family from the world by placing them in the ark. Gap theorists confuse the word world, referring to people, society, and their surroundings as a whole (Galatians 4:3), with the word earth, describing the physical place in which people dwell. Isaiah 18:3 and Isaiah 23:17 explains that the world is something that dwells upon the earth, not something that is the earth. God’s judgment at the time of Noah brought the destruction of the world, not the destruction of the earth.

    This lack of understanding has led many theologians to teach the "three-earth "theory, which is based upon the gap theory. The three-earth theory simply states that the earth prior to Genesis 1:2 was the first earth, the current earth is the second earth, and the earth God has yet to create, as described in Isaiah 65:17 and II Peter 3:13, is the third earth. Revelation 21:1 refutes this belief in stating that the current earth is the first earth, not the second.

    As previously explained, the Scriptural references used in defense of the gap theory have absolutely no merit. However, to be fair and complete, a detailed look must be taken, examining the two assumptions put forth by the gap theory: 1) that Satan was created prior to the six days of creation, and 2) that Satan fell before the six days of creation.

When was Satan created, and when did he fall from Heaven?

    The Bible, unlike some other religious documents, teaches that Satan was a created being--the anointed cherub of God (Ezekiel 28:14). Known as Lucifer, Satan is thought to have been the chief musician of heaven due to the fact that God had created pipes and tabrets inside of his body (Ezekiel 28:13). God had named Satan and the angels the "sons of God "(Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7), a title given only to those that were created directly by God and not born to parents. Even Adam, since he was created directly by God, is referred to in this manner (Luke 3:38).

Adopted Sons of God God also extended the title "sons of God" to those who have accepted Christ as their Savior. As children of God, we have each been made a new creature (II Corinthians 5:17) and adopted as a son of God (Romans 8:14; Romans 8:19; Philippians 2:15; I John 3:1-2).

The Bible clearly teaches that Satan was created, and that he was not co-eternal with God. 

In Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17, God says He created all things in six days.

Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

Exodus 31:17 "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested."

    The phrase "and all that in them is "included Satan, the angels, stars, space, earth, plants, animals, and man. Genesis 2:1 further supports this through its use of the phrase "and all the host of them." It is NOT possible to say it more plainly than the words used in Exodus 20:11! Since everything was made in the six days, then obviously Satan was also made then.

    Genesis 1:5 states, "And the evening and the morning were the first day, "demonstrating there is no gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. The translators of the KJV wisely chose this word rather than the incorrect way many new translations say it was "a day" or "one day" to allow room for the gap theory.

    Satan was created during the six-day creation week. Scripture leaves no room for a period of time prior to "the first day. "Is it possible to determine which day Satan was created?

    The first chapter of Genesis makes no mention of the timing for God’s creation of Satan and the angels. However, the book of Job, thought to pre-date the compiled writings of Genesis, contains references of Satan as one of the sons of God. In Job 1:6 and Job 2:1, God allows Satan to plague His servant Job.

The Seventh Day Many verses such as Gen. 2:2-3 and Heb. 4:4 refer to God resting on "the seventh day." If the gap theory were true this would not be "the seventh day" would it?

Job 38:4-7 "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"

    Job 38:7 explains that "all the sons of God," celebrated a portion of God’s creation. The "sons of God shouted for joy "because God had just "laid the foundations of the earth." This clearly shows that Satan was created prior to the earth’s foundations being laid. The "foundations" probably refer to "land,"appearing on the third day of creation (Genesis 1:9). The creation of Satan most likely occurred on the first, second, or possibly third day of God’s creation. The only other clue given by Scripture is a reference to Satan as the "son of the morning "(Isaiah 14:12), possibly placing Satan’s creation in the morning on one of the first three days.

    Since everything was created in six days (Ex. 20:11) and Lucifer was created (Ez. 28:13,15), the gap theory’s second assumption, the idea that Satan fell prior to the six days of creation, is already invalidated.
   

    The timing of Satan’s fall is extremely important to the integrity of the gap theory, since its proponents use it to mark the end of the gap and the beginning of Genesis 1:2. An answer to the time of Satan’s fall can be found with a careful look at the Scriptural accounts of this event. The first clue, found in Isaiah 14:14, records the words of Satan at the time of his fall--"I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High." Since the clouds could not have formed prior to God’s creation of water on day one, Satan fell after day one. Referring back to Job 38:4-7 that Satan was "shouting for joy" as the foundations were being laid, his fall must have occurred after day two or day three. Isaiah 14:13 also reveals to us that Satan’s fall must have occurred after the creation of the "stars," which occurred on day four. Certainly, these verses imply Satan could not have fallen before creation.

    The Bible gives one of the most influential clues about the timing of Satan’s fall in Ezekiel 28:13-17, which presents a picture of what Satan was like prior to God’s discovery of iniquity in his heart. God revealed that Lucifer, in an unfallen state, existed in the Garden of Eden, which was not created until day six. Many gap theorists have tried to explain this by saying that the Garden of Eden in Ezekiel 28:13-17 could not have been the one described in the book of Genesis. To preserve their theory, they invented another garden just as they invented another flood. Neither is ever mentioned in God’s Word. The gap theorists’ opinion comes from the fact that Ezekiel describes the Garden as having "every precious stone, "which, they say, is different from the Genesis account. This difference is unsubstantiated Biblically since the Genesis Eden was described as having precious stones (Genesis 2:11-12).

    God said in Genesis 1:31 that He "saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." If Satan had already fallen, God could not have made this statement. The clues of Scripture confirm that Satan could not have possibly fallen until after day six.

    After determining the earliest point at which Satan could have fallen, discovering the latest point that it could have occurred proves to be very difficult. The next "date" given in Genesis 5:3, records, "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth." This clue, however, helps deduce the time of Satan’s fall.

    From the sixth day of creation up until the time Seth was born to Adam and Eve, several events had transpired--Satan had fallen, Adam and Eve had fallen into sin, Adam and Eve had been expelled from the Garden of Eden, Cain and Abel had been born, and Abel had been murdered by Cain. With this information, and the following "common sense" assumptions, one can now find out the latest at which Satan could have fallen:

- Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel shortly after their expulsion from the Garden of Eden.
- Cain and Abel had been at least 25 years old when Abel’s murder took place.
- Seth had probably not been born when Abel was killed in light of Genesis 4:25 "And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew." With these assumptions, one can deduce the following:

The age of Adam when Seth was born:	130
-    The minimum age of Cain and Abel:	25 (?)
=   The maximum age of Adam when he was expelled	105 (?)

    Since Satan had already fallen at the time of Adam and Eve’s expulsion from the Garden of Eden, we must conclude that his fall occurred within the first 105 years after day six. One unique fact from Scripture that may limit the 105 year time frame even further can be found in Genesis 4:9-17. In these verses, God is telling Cain of the punishment he is about to receive for murdering his brother Abel. Cain responds by saying, "every one that findeth me shall slay me." Who are these people that Cain is worried about? Were not Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel the only people in existence at the time of Abel’s murder? Apparently, Adam and Eve had had several other children by this time. After Cain fled, the Bible records he dwelt in the land of Nod where his wife conceived a son Enoch. The older Cain was when he slew Abel, the more other brothers and sisters could have been living, and the younger Adam would have been when he and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden.  There is no way of determining from Scripture the exact age of Cain when he slew Abel; therefore, our original estimation of a maximum 105-year time frame must be adhered to although it was probably shorter.

    During these 105 years, Adam and Eve were in close fellowship with God, giving Him their total worship and admiration. Satan, observing this relationship, became jealous and wanted man to worship him instead. This iniquity resulted in his fall. The Scripture-based time window for Satan’s fall is illustrated on the time line below.

    Through an exhaustive and thorough search of the Scripture, one can conclude that no gap exists between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2."In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" and "all that in them is," and He did it in six, literal, 24-hour days. With this in mind, there is only one question left to answer. Does it really matter if the gap theory is taught or not?
   
    After studying the subject exhaustively, one must determine if the theory conflicts with, or attempts to compromise, the common-sense teachings of the Scripture. There are four different ways in which the gap theory violates Scripture.

1. The gap theory undermines the simplicity and authority of Scripture.

Psalm 119:169 teaches that man is to receive his understanding from the Scriptures. Although God made His Word plain and simple so that all could understand and believe (Psalm 119:130), many  theologians interpret Scriptures with a mind clouded by opinions, preconceived ideas, and a bias having been "educated" in heathen schools of thought. Interpretation in this manner causes many theologians to twist the Scripture into agreeing with their "theory."  Feeling the attacks of "science, "Christians began to interpret the Scripture with the preconceived idea that science had determined the age of the earth. God did not write His Word with tricky language.  To compromise the simplicity or authority of the Scripture is to accommodate the world’s current philosophy. If the gap theory were true, the average person must not be capable of reading the Bible and understanding it without some guru or priest telling them what it really means. This is an earmark of nearly all cults.

2. The gap theory violates the relationship between Christ and Adam.

I Corinthians 15:45 states, "The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. "Clearly the Scripture not only recognizes Adam as being the "first man," but more importantly links Adam to Christ. Adam brought sin and death into the world; Christ brought righteousness and eternal life. The gap theory teaches that a race of men had previously populated the earth but were destroyed in "Lucifer’s Flood." This would mean that Adam was not the first man created, just the first man created after "Lucifer’s Flood," and would clearly be a violation of Scripture.

3. The gap theory attacks the credibility of Christ.

On several occasions, Christ quoted from or referred to the book of Genesis in His teachings, obviously believing the Genesis account to be the Word of God, in considering the six days of creation to be the beginning. In Matthew 19:4 and Mark 10:6, Christ declares that the creation of Adam and Eve occurred at the beginning. Paul states in Hebrews 1:10,"in the beginning [God] hast laid the foundation of the earth," something that did not occur until day two or day three. Clearly, according to Scripture, the beginning was the creation week. Gap theorists, however, attack the credibility of Christ by claiming that the beginning is a reference to a point in time much earlier than the six-day creation.

4. The gap theory denies the purpose of the cross.

Without a doubt, the foundation upon which our salvation and hope rests is the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross. God created a perfect, sinless earth and placed upon it a perfect, sinless man. This man, Adam, enjoyed close fellowship with his Creator until he sinned and broke the perfect relationship between God and man. Ever since that time, death and degradation have plagued God’s once-perfect creation, and man has been separated from God. However, the shedding of Christ’s innocent blood on the cross can restore man’s fellowship with God and provide him eternal life. Through Adam’s sin, death entered into the world; but through Christ’s sacrifice, salvation is made possible (Romans 5:19). Therein lies the gap theory’s greatest error, the placement of sin and death prior to the existence of Adam. If death existed prior to Adam’s sin, then how could it be the result of sin?

    Thomas Chalmers did not develop the gap theory because he wished to compromise the Scripture. Chalmers, responding to the attacks of science upon his faith, created the gap theory as a means to join the teachings of the Bible with supposed scientific findings and maintain scientific credibility in the light of the rapidly spreading idea that the earth was old. His mistake grew out of his own reasoning instead of Scripture.

    Unfortunately, many prominent Christian theologians, such as C.I. Scofield and Clarence Larkin, accepted the teachings of Chalmers as the attacks from science became more frequent upon their faith.  These men, however, sincerely loved the Lord and spent their lives propogating the gospel.  Even today, many godly men support the gap theory, having been misled by an innocent mistake.

Summary

There are many problems with the gap theory.
1. Invented 1814 in response to the teaching the earth was old--not historical position of the Christian church.
2. Violates scriptures Gen. 1:5; 2:2-3, Ex. 20:11; Heb. 4:4.
3. Puts death before Adam’s sin--violating Rom. 5:12, I Cor
 15:21
4. Has Satan fall before day 7--violates Gen. 1:31; 2:8; Ezek.
 28:12-15

Questions for gap theorists to answer:

1. Was Satan already the "god of this world" (II Cor. 4:5) when    God gave Adam dominion (Gen. 1:26-28) over the earth?
2. Thousands of species of living animals are also found as fossils. If fossils represent animals destroyed in "Lucifer’s flood" did God recreate these exactly as before?
3. When God said everything was "very good," was Satan evil, and were Adam and Eve standing on thousands of dead plants and animals?
4. Wouldn’t Noah’s world-wide flood have erased all evidence of the "billions of years" taught in the gap theory?
5. What did God mean in Ex. 20:11 and 31:17?
6. Does everyone who reads the Bible need some "guru" to tell them what the Bible says?
7. Why can the words "let"(Romans 1:13) and "gay" (James 2:3) change meanings in 400 years but the word "replenish" cannot?
8. Why do we need a gap? What took place during this time? Isn’t this just trying to compromise the Bible with the current teaching that the earth is old?
9. Why does Revelation 21:1 state that the earth we live on now is the "first" earth if it really is not?
10. Was Adam "the first man" as I Corinthians 15:45 says?
11. It has never been proven that the earth is billions of years old. There is ample scientific evidence that the earth is only 6000 years old (see The Age of the Earth, by Dr. Kent Hovind), so why should we compromise a perfectly good Bible, which has never been proven wrong, with a teaching that has never been proven right?

Sources used in this study:

A.C. Custance, Without Form and Void (Brookville, Canada: published by the author, 1970)
W.W. Fields, Unformed and Unfilled (Collinsville, IL: Burgeners Enterprises, 1976)
Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland, The Revised & Expanded Answers Book (Master Books, 2000)
William Hanna editor, Natural Theology, Selected works of Thomas Chalmers, Vol.5 of 12 (Edinburgh: Thomas Constable, 1857), p. 146
James Hutton, Theory of the Earth (Volume I of the Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1798)
Clarence Larkin, Dispensational Truth (Philadelphia, PA: Fox Chase, 1920)
Charles Lyell, Principles of Geology (3 vols. 1830; reprinted University of Chicago Press, 1990)
Henry M. Morris, The Long War Against God: The History and Impact of the Creation/Evolution Conflict (Master Books, 2000)
Henry M. Morris, editor, Scientific Creationism, General Edition (Santee, CA: Master Books, 1974)
G.H. Pember, Earth’s Earliest Ages (New York: H. Revell Company, 1900)
C.I. Scofield, editor, The Scofield Study Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1945)
I.T. Taylor, In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order (Toronto, Canada: TFE Publishing, 1984)

Dr. Ruckman was not pro-abortion! (Bible Believers' Bulletin June 2016)

I got the Bible Believers' Bulletin in the mail today and decided I would share this--for all the King James Bible hating liars that say Dr. Ruckman was pro-abortion. He wasn't!

"For instance, abortion defeats the purpose of God putting man and woman together. When God created the man and the woman, He said, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth" (Gen. 1:28)." Bible Believers' Bulletin page 16 (Vol. 40 No. 6)  June 2016. by Dr. Peter Ruckman

Pastor David O'Steen explains why we changed from Landmark Baptist Church to Hope Bible Church (King James Bible believing and Mid-Acts Dispensational)

Why We Changed Our Church Name by Pastor David O'Steen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABrPm0KHqkg

Published on May 24, 2016

5/22/16, from Landmark Baptist Church to Hope Bible Church

Landmark Baptist Church now Hope Bible Church (Locust Grove, GA.)

Landmark Baptist Church in Locust Grove, Georgia is now 

Hope Bible Church (Pastor David O'Steen)
http://hopebiblechurchga.com/

No longer Baptist. (praise the Lord!)

It is King James Bible believing and Mid-Acts Dispensational (2 Tim. 2:15, 3:15-16). 

Statement of Faith
http://hopebiblechurchga.com/menu/id/142/Doctrine

Audio sermons
http://hopebiblechurchga.com/menu/id/145/Audio

Pastor O'Steen's Youtube channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvuq5zTiQvMfWl9DNci7DPg/videos 

 

Distant star light and a young Earth

How did the star's light reach Earth if they are billions of light years away and the Earth and stars are only 6,000 years old? 

That is suppose to be a big "zinger" according to the old Earth day-age theory folks and the Darwinists. But it is not a question that bothers the Bible believing Christian nor does distant star light contradict the Bible. The Bible indicates the stars are infinite from man's perspective (Gen. 15:5, 22:17, etc.). It also says the stars are very far away,

"Is not God in the height of heaven? and behold the height of the stars, how high they are!" (Job 22:12)

Note the exclamation mark at the end of the sentence. The Bible hardly ever uses exclamation marks, so when you see one you need to pay attention. 

Distant star light coming from billions of light years away does not contradict what the Bible says about stars. But the Darwinists believe that this contradicts a young universe. However, the Bible is very clear that God made the stars "for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years" and "to give light upon the earth" with the moon and sun (Gen. 1:14-18). So it isn't that hard to figure out, God initially set the speed of the stars light so fast that they gave light upon the Earth on the fourth day of creation.

Genesis 1:
[14] And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
[15] And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
[16] And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
[17] And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
[18] And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
[19] And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Then the Darwinists come out and say, "Oh, so you're appealing to miracles to solve the problem, huh?" 

To which I respond: duh. We're talking about God SPEAKING the universe into existence with the breath of His mouth. Everything I believe about creation is a miracle.

Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.  

Psalms 19:
[1] The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
[2] Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
[3] There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
[4] Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
[5] Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
[6] His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

But the Big Bang theory is also a MIRACLE itself, but no Darwinist will ever admit it. The Big Bang theory says that ALL the matter, energy, and space in the entire universe was squished into a little tiny dot smaller than the period at the end of a sentence. They believe that this little singularity exploded and produced the universe and that the universe is still expanding from that little explosion. That is the most unscientific garbage I have ever heard of. Nobody can replicate a Big Bang because nobody has observed another singularity. Nobody has ever been able to pack that much matter, energy, and space into that small of a dot either. They also don't know why it exploded or how it exploded. They have also not been able to replicate an explosion that powerful. Nor have they been able to say WHAT exactly exploded. The theory is unscientific, it is RELIGIOUS to the core. Darwinian naturalism is a religion hiding under the name "science" (falsely so called, 1 Tim. 6:20). 

The Darwinists will say, "But we have scientific evidence for the Big Bang, the universe is expanding! Which means it had to have always been expanding which means it had to have originated as a tiny singularity." Really? An expanding universe proves the Big Bang? The atheists better watch their step, that kind of reasoning also proves that the Bible is true. The Bible teaches an expanding universe...

Psalms 104:1-2 Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Isaiah 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Isaiah 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

Isaiah 51:13 And forgettest the LORD thy maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens, and laid the foundations of the earth; and hast feared continually every day because of the fury of the oppressor, as if he were ready to destroy? and where is the fury of the oppressor?  

Jeremiah 10:12 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion. 

Jeremiah 51:15  He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding.

Zechariah 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.

An expanding universe does not prove that the universe use to be a tiny singularity that continuously expanded. All it proves is that the universe is expanding. The singularity theory is an INTERPRETATION of the fact that the universe is expanding. Believing the universe use to be a singularity because it has expanded is like saying that a blown up balloon use to be a singularity because it has blown up and expanded. When in fact, the balloon had a starting size that it expanded from.  It was never a tiny singularity.

What is ironic about the light travel problem that the Darwinists accuse the Bible believers of having is that the Darwinists have a light travel problem themselves called the horizon problem. 

Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang

by Jason Lisle, Ph.D.  
"The ‘distant starlight problem’ is sometimes used as an argument against biblical creation. People who believe in billions of years often claim that light from the most distant galaxies could not possibly reach earth in only 6,000 years. However, the light-travel–time argument cannot be used to reject the Bible in favour of the big bang, with its billions of years. This is because the big bang model also has a light-travel–time problem.

The background

In 1964/5, Penzias and Wilson discovered that the earth was bathed in a faint microwave radiation, apparently coming from the most distant observable regions of the universe, and this earned them the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1978.¹ This Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) comes from all directions in space and has a characteristic temperature.^2,3 While the discovery of the CMB has been called a successful prediction of the big bang model,⁴ it is actually a problem for the big bang. This is because the precisely uniform temperature of the CMB creates a light-travel–time problem for big bang models of the origin of the universe.

The problem

The temperature of the CMB is essentially the same everywhere⁵—in all directions (to a precision of 1 part in 100,000).⁶ However (according to big bang theorists), in the early universe, the temperature of the CMB⁷ would have been very different at different places in space due to the random nature of the initial conditions. These different regions could come to the same temperature if they were in close contact. More distant regions would come to equilibrium by exchanging radiation (i.e. light⁸). The radiation would carry energy from warmer regions to cooler ones until they had the same temperature.

The problem is this: even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions of the current CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other?⁹ This is a light-travel–time problem.¹⁰
 
The big bang model assumes that the universe is many billions of years old. While this timescale is sufficient for light to travel from distant galaxies to earth, it does not provide enough time for light to travel from one side of the visible universe to the other."   

http://creation.com/light-travel-time-a-problem-for-the-big-bang

--Eli Caldwell

The Gospel of the Grace of God VS Lordship Salvation

Lordship Salvationist: An anti-lordship salvationist. I hate to tell you, but the Bible clearly teaches that true saving faith, is a faith that produces obedience. That's why Paul can give a list of sins, and state that those who practice such sins aren't saved. 

Hoss: You say, "I hate to tell you, but the Bible clearly teaches that true saving faith, is a faith that produces obedience. That's why Paul can give a list of sins, and state that those who practice such sins aren't saved." That is so wrong. Very, very wrong. "Saving faith" is faith in the gospel of Christ as found in 1 Cor. 15:3-4. But living the rest of your life in attempt to serve the Lord the best you can is dependent on faith and submission to the word of God (John 17:17, Eph. 5:25-26, Ps. 119:9, etc). Saved people who never read their Bible is not going to produce very much "obedience" because they don't have the word of God in their heart and mind (Ps. 119:11). Living for the Lord is not something that just comes natural to saved person, you still have the "old man" that fights against the Holy Spirit in you (Rom. 6:6, Eph. 4:22, Col. 3:9). The believer has two natures (Gal. 5:16-25). A saved person has to "purpose in his heart" not to sin against God (Dan. 1:8).

You said "the Bible clearly teaches that true saving faith, is a faith that produces obedience". OBEDIENCE TO WHAT? The ten commandments? Lordship salvationists have a hard time deciding what you have to obey in order to prove that you're saved. Usually they pick sins that they aren't committing like adultery, murder, or drunkeness. They never pick sins like envy, lust, covetousness, etc. Lordship salvationists also can't decide how much obedience is required. Do you have to obey God 100% of the time, or just 99%? Or is between 85% and 90% enough to prove that you have "saving faith"? Lordship salvation have no mechanics for this kind of stuff, they just make it up as they go along.

We all sin everyday, so if "obedience" after faith in Christ is required then we're all in big trouble.

The Bible teaches that someone can having "saving faith" and then live the rest of his life in sin, even to the point where God kills them. In the Bible God judged believers in the flesh, but they were still SAVED when they died.

1 Corinthians 5:
[1] It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
[2] And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
[3] For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
[4] In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
[5] To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be SAVED in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Paul said that even if a believer had produced no good service for Christ, at the judgement seat of Christ that person's works would be burnt up, BUT THEY WERE STILL SAVED

1 Corinthians 3:
[12] Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
[13] Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
[14] If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
[15] If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be SAVED; yet so as by fire.

The church of Corinth was filled with sins such as division (1 Cor. 1:10), fornication (1 Cor .5:1), heresies (1 Cor. 11:19), they were suing each other (1 Cor. 6:1-6), and some of them quit believing in the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:12). The church was so bad that Paul said they were assembling for the WORSE and not for the better (1 Cor. 11:17). Does that sound like they were "obedient"? Lordship salvationists would have accused the Corinthians of not having "saving faith" since they were not obeying. But look at what Paul says about that church:

1 Corinthians 1:
[1] Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
[2] Unto the church OF GOD which is at Corinth, to them that are SANCTIFIED IN CHRIST JESUS, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
[3] GRACE BE UNTO YOU, AND PEACE, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
[4] I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ;
[5] That in every thing YE ARE ENRICHED BY HIM, in all utterance, and in all knowledge;
[6] Even as THE TESTIMONY OF CHRIST WAS CONFIRMED IN YOU:
[7] So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:
[8] Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
[9] God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.

Regardless of whether or not a believer is faithful to God, God is still faithful to us (vs. 9). As bad as the church at Corinth was, it was still a church "of God". God sent grace and peace unto them (vs. 3). The Corinthians were not obeying God in the flesh, but their spirit was still "sanctified in Christ Jesus".

Paul NEVER gave a "list of sins" that you can commit and not be saved. Frankly you are lying. There is no such list in the Bible. What is on that list? Murder? David and Moses murdered people. Is adultery on the list? David committed adultery. How about polygamy? Solomon committed polygamy. How about denying the Lord? Peter denied the Lord. How about idolatry? John repeatedly tried to worship an angel. How about suicide? Samson took his own life. There is no sin on earth that a saved person hasn't committed.

Is this the "list" you are referring to?

1 Corinthians 6:
[9] Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
[10] Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Well the Corinthians were committing those sins (1 Cor. 5:1-5, 11:21). You better look at verse 11, the Corinthians were WASHED, SANCTIFIED, and JUSTIFIED in Christ just as 1 Corinthians 1:1-9 stated.

[11] And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

The hyper calvinists claim to believe in salvation by grace and eternal security, but they really believe in hard core WORKS salvation and judging someone's salvation based on their WORKS. What a mess.

--Eli "Hoss" Caldwell