Category: Open Letter

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.

If it is not ethical or possible to teach our children the truth without compromise in the halls of academia, then the Bible should not be taught there. Parents need to consider this carefully before sending their children to such institutions where their Bible education will be coming in large part from college professors instead of preachers, teachers and elders in the local church.

Ron Lloyd dedicated his life to speaking the truth. A soldier has now fallen, and a good man rests from his labors. Yet, brother Lloyd’s influence remains. Through this letter, he being dead yet speaketh. In this day of compromise and accommodation, may faithful brethren everywhere be encouraged to stand for the truth.

Brother Ferrell Jenkins gave the above lecture in the Puckett auditorium as part of this year’s lecture series. This writer was in attendance to hear this lecture. Later that same evening, I had the opportunity to talk with Ferrell about it, differing with some of the things he had said. When the lecture was later transcribed I wrote an informal review of it which was circulated via e-mail. This review led to a brief exchange of posts with brother Jenkins via e-mail. In all of my dealings with Ferrell, Ferrell has been kind and I certainly have no axe to grind with him personally. It is simply a case of his speech deserving a more formal review because of its implications on matters troubling brethren today.

Bill, you say we ought not bite and devour one another. I agree. But, your use of Galatians 5:15 is faulty. If that passage is warning us not to put up a fight in defense of truth, then we can never stand for anything. If we don’t oppose errors and innovations then the errors and innovations will consume us. We will never stop the inroads of error and apostasy by sticking our heads in the sand and pretending they don’t exist.

The “Twenty-Eight Questions” were withdrawn because of strong opposition. Unfortunately, the principal authors never admitted such a document was wrong in its inception or use. As a result, in a conversation with one of the principal authors, I observed that if the tide of public opinion ever changed he would trot the questionnaire right back out and use it. Well we don’t have the questionnaire but we do have the 29th question and the principal authors of the “Twenty-Eight Questions” are co-signers of the “Open Letter.” Should we be surprised?

In spite of the fact that brother Hill Roberts has declared repeatedly that he will not discuss these matters with those of us who wrote and signed the Open Letter, he has recently posted another response on his web site to what has been written regarding his positions, and by this writer in particular. It appears that he will discuss them, but only on his terms, when and where he determines. Since we could not get him openly to debate these issues, we are happy to receive this response and have another opportunity to, in this limited sense at least, answer his quibbles and reply to the additional points he has made.

Based on study of textural analyses by men more skilled at it than I, it seems there is some textural uncertainty as to the geographic scope of that flood of the land. If the flood was limited to mankind’s region, that is wholly acceptable to some conservative Old Testament textural scholars.

An institutional defense mechanism often sets in with a college to justify its practice at all cost. It was done by Lipscomb in the issue over church support of colleges. It was done by Abilene Christian University in the issue over theistic evolution in their midst. It was even done by Florida College when brother Hailey’s error was exposed. At that time, the administration attacked those who exposed brother Hailey’s error while saying precious little to fight it. When our critics fail to rebuke the error to the source and warn all others about it, all will know that their real agenda differs from their stated reason.

Again I will say that it is easy to understand how the events of the sixth day of a 144 hour week might be viewed as ‘the beginning of creation’; but it is difficult indeed to see how man’s creation 15-20 billion years after the original creation might in any sense be called ‘the beginning.’ The Lord said it was at the beginning of creation. Brother Roberts’ view is that it was near the end. I will leave the reader to judge who is right. But with all due respect, I will place my faith in the words of my Lord.

Heeding good advice, ordinarily I would not respond to such a letter. Such attacks bring me no harm. However, because I am being used as a means by which to attack and attempt to bring real harm on others, I must now respond. I offer these blunt comments in hopes of exposing and defeating this weak and ungodly attack on Florida College staff and other godly men who are busy preaching the Word.

Brother Jenkins, please accept these words in the spirit of love in which they were written. I have sought to follow Paul’s admonition in 1st Timothy 1:5, which says, “Do not sharply rebuke an older man, but rather appeal to him as a father.” This has been my only goal. I remain your friend and devoted former student. I shall never forget the many ways in which you have helped me.

I wrote, “Let’s be consistent, brethren. It is ‘inexcusable’ to practice the very thing that you condemn in others” (Rom. 2:1). Brother Jenkins has complained about his treatment by others. Perhaps it is time for brother Jenkins to look in the mirror. His entire article was nothing but a witch-hunt for inconsistencies and an effort to use those alleged inconsistencies to pit good brother against brother.

Parents are not sending their children to Florida College in order that they might hear different “views” or “options” concerning Bible doctrines, without any denunciation or refutation of that which is false. They are sending them, in particular as respects the Bible courses, to be taught the truth, while also learning to recognize false doctrine on certain Bible subjects.