Category: Creation

God has given us light and all the blessings that accompany it. This light has been introduced in our world at different times. Physical light came at the creation. Spiritual light came with Jesus Christ. This “light of life” came to us personally as we came to believe and obey the gospel.

The author of Hebrews writes, “Without faith it is impossible to be well pleasing unto him; for he that comes to God must believe that…

Psalms 14:1, “The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”  There is a feature that most of us put a lot of…

God does not cause every natural disaster, but they should serve as an opportunity to show our love for man, our praise for God and our desire for Heaven.

The foolishness of man is evident in his belief that he can look back in time by using the Hubble Space Telescope to view distant heavenly bodies.

Be of the same sentiment as the Bereans of old who “searched the scriptures daily to see whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11). Truth has nothing to fear from honest investigation. We remain open to brotherly discussion of these issues. May we hear from you?

It is wrong and dangerous to interpret the Bible in light of the popular scientific theory of the day. The Bible is inspired and infallible, men are not. Our understanding of nature should be influenced by scripture, not the other way around. Some may claim such is anti-science, unscientific, ignorant and superstitious. But, as Christians we must remember that we are primarily people of faith. “Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar…” (Romans 3:4).

How far have we gotten from old-fashioned Bible study? How far have we gotten from a “thus saith the Lord?” Do we yet speak “as the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11)? Do we “speak where the Bible speaks and remain silent where the Bible is silent?” We have always said that “truth has nothing to fear from investigation.” Is this really true or have we been mouthing platitudes all these years while we chide denominationalism for their closed minds? Is your mind open? Will you study these vital issues? Ask your preacher. See what he has to say.

Dear reader, we encourage you, also, to stand. Be unyielding to error. Have conviction about the word of God and what it teaches. Don’t give in to compromise and weak preaching. Stand!

It should alarm faithful brethren to see the growing willingness to label literal Bible truths as “figurative,” “metaphorical,” “symbolical,” “allegorical,” or even, as Hill Roberts admits, “mythical.” How do we effectively fight and refute the encroachment of error? We oppose and expose it at the very outset before it gains a foothold from which to assault faith.

I acknowledge my human weaknesses and I recognize my personal limitations when it comes to reading the Scriptures and communicating my thoughts to others. Yet I take comfort in the fact that we serve a God who is willing to pardon our human frailty. Let me now state categorically that I believe whatever God’s word says about any subject.

The path of this plea to be “uncertain” about the literal nature of Bible facts is obvious, contagious and disastrous. What is next? We do not know, but this error is sure to find other applications as it re-interprets more and more literal truths into possible literary devices about which we cannot be certain.

Brethren need to understand the danger of conforming God’s will to popular thought. Such attitudes resulted in Israel clamoring for a king (cf. 1 Samuel 8:5-7), the Judaizers binding circumcision upon the Gentile (cf. Galatians 6:6-9), and the Gnostics denying the humanity of Christ (cf. 1 John 4:2-3). It led to the adoption of ecclesiastical heiarchy leading to the establishment of the Catholic church, the embracing of the instrument in Christian worship, and the acceptance of the social gospel concept in our generation. And, it is leading some to deny the literal nature of God’s account of His creation of the world.

Brother Roberts may attempt to turn the tables and place the blame on myself and others like me if he would like, but this entire present controversy really falls back upon him. I did not initiate an attack upon Phil Roberts or his views. Phil initiated an assault upon my writings. He is the one who wrote those handouts. He is the one who delivered those messages. He is the one who is doing all he can in his speeches and lectures to make plenty of room in the hearts and minds of the Lord’s people (and especially the students at FC) for these competing views of the creation, posited by his brother Hill and those like him, and at the same time attempt with all of his might and mane to poke holes in the literal approach to Genesis 1.

Having made a cursory review of Dan’s lengthy articles, I am not convinced that he understands either the main thrust of the lecture or the particulars of many of the individual arguments or hermeneutical issues involved. All the criticisms regarding what I did or did not say in representing him lack foundation in fact, as Dan would have known had he been present.

If something can be found in the Bible which is not scientifically accurate, then it is not true. And if it is not true, then the rest of the Bible falls apart like a house of cards. Modernists know this, and this is the reason they set forth the arguments which they do. They do not believe in plenary, or “full” inspiration of Scripture, and they are anxious to find fodder for their cannons. “Pre-scientific world-view” arguments are therefore common in their writings.

Phil repeats the same two arguments which Shane Scott has made to justify his view of long creative days (Day-Age Theory): He says the “clues” which indicate the days are not regular 24 hour days include “Naming all the animals in one day” and “Lack of termination for the seventh day.” We will not discuss these issues here, since they have been often and adequately refuted, but we do want to make one important observation. The fact that he argues thus, clearly indicates to us that the Florida College Bible department is not free of this error simply because Shane Scott has left the school.

Why did he not choose the earlier date of the two? He knows that all conservative Bible students consider the round figure 2000 BC to be the approximate age of Abraham. He also knows that 1700 BC is the approximate age in the mind of the modernist for Abraham‘s era. Why did he choose to connect me with the late date crowd, i.e., the modernists? Nothing in my article would suggest that I hold to the late date as the period of Abraham and the rest of the patriarchs. Nothing that I have ever said to him or written in any other article would give him that impression. Why would he engage in such distortion? Why would he imply that I do not accept the inerrancy of Scripture with his suggestive phrase “the late date is not generally accepted among those who accept biblical inerrancy”? I am absolutely appalled by his use of such methods!

Likewise, we may be tempted upon a surface reading of the Genesis genealogical material to see the genealogies as absolute chronologies, but that is not what the Bible calls them, and that is not what the entire biblical context shows them to be. As Benjamin B. Warfield has written, “The general fact that the genealogies of Scripture were not constructed for a chronological purpose and lend themselves ill to employment as a basis for chronological calculations has been repeatedly shown very fully. These genealogies must be esteemed trustworthy for the purpose for which they are recorded; but they cannot safely be pressed into use for other purposes for which they were not intended, and for which they are not adapted” (“Antiquity and Unity of the Human Race” in Biblical and Theological Studies 240-241).

I do not consider that those materials which we are about to review constitute a serious attempt at refutation of my work on the geneologies, for if it were actually possible to refute it, I believe that would have been done at the time it first appeared. Moreover, I am convinced that our opponents would have jumped at the chance to formulate a written repudiation of my article, and that has not yet seen the light of day.