BiblicalInsights.net

Francis Collins, in The Language of God, states, “Despite twenty-five centuries of debate, it is fair to say that no human knows what the meaning of Genesis 1 and 2 was precisely intended to be” (p. 153).  Collins escapes into agnosticism regarding the meaning of Genesis 1 and 2 because his interpretations of scientific data conflicts with what God said He did and when He did it.  Collins elevates his own interpretations over the obvious import of God’s Word.  Exodus 20:11 states, “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.”  This is divine commentary on Genesis 1 and 2.  Genesis and Exodus were written by Moses.  Jesus affirms that Moses gave the Law (John 7:19, “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?” Jesus referenced Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy in His personal teaching.  He also references Gen. 1 and 2 in Matt. 19:4, “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female.”  And, Mark 10:6, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.”  Collins denies this truth and affirms that man evolved from monkeys (The Language of God, 200, “Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes”).  The rejection of the plain teaching of Genesis 1 and 2 and Exodus 20:11, puts Collins in conflict with Jesus.  Jesus understands Moses perfectly!
The Meaning of the Clarity of Scripture
The doctrine of the clarity of Scripture (also known as the perspicuity of Scripture) means that the central message of the Bible is clear and understandable and that the Bible itself can be properly interpreted in a normal, literal sense.  The doctrine of the clarity of the Scriptures was a main belief of the Reformers such as Martin Luther who taught against the claim that the Bible was not clear and so it was too obscure for the common man to understand.  The Catholic Church opposed the interpretation of the Bible by the common man.
The Bible Proclaims Its Own Clarity
In Deut. 6:6-7, Moses instructs the Israelites to teach the law to their children.  If children can learn the law and the creation account was part of that law, then, adults can learn it too!  In II Tim. 3:13-15, Paul said that Timothy had known the holy Scriptures from a child.  Paul knew that a child could learn the Scriptures.  Both Paul and Jesus understood Genesis 1 and 2 in a literal sense.  Both identified the beginning of the creation of male and female by God.  Both believed Adam was the first man and that he was a real, literal, person (Matt. 19:4-5; Rom. 5:12-ff; I Cor. 15:45).  Redemption is the result of God’s saving work through Jesus Christ because of the fall of Adam and Eve as revealed in Genesis 3.  Genesis 3:15 is the first Messianic promise, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”  These words were spoken to the serpent (Satan).  They reveal God’s plan to deal a crushing blow to the devil through the seed of the woman which was fulfilled in Jesus’ work of redemption (Heb. 2:14-15, “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil”).
The Dangers of The Denial of the Doctrine of Clarity
The denial of the doctrine of the clarity of Scripture means that we must give up on personal accountability to God.  God expects us to know His Word and obey it (Heb. 5:8-9).  If the Bible is unclear about salvation, then, no one could be held accountable for not obeying it.
The denial of the doctrine of clarity means that God failed to adequately communicate His Will to man in such a way that man could know the truth.  How could we distinguish truth from error?  If we believe a lie, we will be damned (II Thess. 2:11-12).
The denial of the doctrine of the clarity of Scripture means that we could not know the true origin of mankind.  We could not know if we were the result of God’s creative power or that we were descended from mice and monkeys.  However, God tells us what He did, when He did it and how He did it (Psa. 33:8-9).  What He did:  created all things by His omnipotence.  When He did it: In the beginning.  How He did it: By divine fiat.  God spoke and it was done.
“For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (II Cor. 4:7).
Theistic Evolution is a Heresy
The word heresy comes from the Greek word, hairesis, and means, “to choose, a self-willed opinion, which is substituted for submission to the power of truth, and leads to division and the formation of sects” (W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, II, 217).  All heresies are works of the flesh (Gal. 5:20, II Pet. 2:1; I Cor. 11:19).  Paul affirms that those who commit the works of the flesh shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Goebel Music, a brother in Christ, who is now deceased wrote a book titled, A Crucial Study of a Critical Subject: Fellowship, in 1989.  In this book, he includes six chapters and an appendix.  The third chapter addresses the topic: Let’s Understand the Doctrine of Christ.  I would like to convey some of Goebel’s remarks on II John 9-11.
“With this “key” passage of major significance listed as one of our “troubling” spots, for some brethren, and with what some scholars have had to say about it, it is now time for us to examine critically and to clarify its meaning.  I want to set this before us “thought after thought” for the best possible understanding of its contents.  Therefore, we now turn our attention and focus our best mental abilities to that end.”
1.  “Whosoever.”  “Although it seems rather foolish to have to state this, let me remind us that this is a general, universal, and catholic term.  Its meaning is like that of John 3:16; Matthew 18:4; 19:9; 5:31-32; Revelation 22:17; etc., regarding “whosoever.”
2.  “Goeth Onward.” “This is the Greek proton (pres. act. participle, nominative, singular masculine from proago, Nathan E. Han, A Parsing Guide To The Greek New Testament, p. 433).  According to Thayer it means “b. to proceed, go forward; in a bad sense, to go further than is right or proper,…to transgress the limits of true doctrine…advanced…in a disparaging sense, 2 Jn. 9…” (P. 537, emp. GM). this is the word from which we get our word “progress” or “progressive,” (Maybe this is what people mean when they want to know, “Is this a progressive church?” GM).
3.  “Abideth Not.” This is the Greek melon (the same identification as proago), from meno, and is descriptive of the same process.  There is, however, a difference, as this is negative, whereas the first is positive.  Among other meanings, this word means “to maintain unbroken fellowship with one” (Thayer, p.399).  The teaching is most explicit! If we are to “have God” (as per the verse) and “to have the Son,” we are to abide “in the doctrine of Christ.”
4.  “In the Teaching of Christ.”  “This phrase, used twice in this one verse, has already been discussed as meaning “the teaching of Christ, which he did personally, and through those inspired men, as he is the author of this infallible, inerrant, unchangeable standard.” “There is to be no progression beyond the limits of this teaching!”
5.  “Hath Not God.”  “The true God is found only in the teaching of Christ (cf. I John 5:20; John 14:9,11; 10:30).  When we refer to God, various scriptures automatically come to mind, such as: Genesis 1:1; Psalms 33:6,9; Isaiah 43:7; 44:6; 45:18; Exodus 3:14; Psalms 90:2; I Corinthians 8:5-6; John 3:16; Isaiah 45:22; Deuteronomy 5:7; 6:1ff and a galaxy of others.  This is, indeed, the Father!
6.  “He That Abideth In The Teaching, The Same Hath Both The Father And The Son.” “This is a most explicit statement with abiding results!  The necessity of it is herein shown. It is a positive statement relative to that “which results” when one abides “in the doctrine,” or as the American Standard Says, “in the teaching.”  If logic is worth a dime, the negative of this statement is viewed as being most disastrous!  To fail to abide “in the teaching,” is to “give up having,” yea, both the Father and the Son!”
7.  “If One Cometh Unto You.”  “I first want to call you (sic) attention to the “broadness” of this statement: “If Any One!” The “whosoever,” and now this “if any one,” is likened unto its usage in Matthew 5:31-32 where “whosoever’ is used twice and “any one” is used once.  It is also like Matthew 19:9 where we have “whosoever” and “he that” (which “he,” is it? It is any “he.”). This is a thought worthy of our mental bank! It is to be understood since the Greek construction is ei with the indicative, that they “will come” and they “will come” for the very purpose of “teaching.” It is not a statement that “supposes someone might come….!”  Brethren, they may come “from without,” but they may very likely come “from within” (cf. Acts 20:29-30).
8.  “And Bringeth Not This Teaching.” “This is a self-explanatory and easily understood statement, as it is the “follow-up” in verification of what has been previously sated.  Note the “if any one cometh” and now the “and bringeth not this teaching,” as this is the proof of the first statement.  Again, let us remind ourselves that these teachers “will come’ and they will not come with “the teaching of Christ.” If one fails to understand “this teaching” to be synonymous with “the doctrine/teaching of Christ” then he truly has a problem!  Note the different statements: “the teaching of Christ” (twice used), “the teaching,” and “this teaching.”  And note also the negative used in relation to “this teaching.”  When this “is done,” we are then told exactly, explicitly, what our action is to be!”
9.  “Receive Him Not Into Your House, And Give Him No Greeting.”  “Is there a “qualification” that one must meet in relation to the teaching/doctrine of Christ and my hospitality and personal greeting of the same?  Does this passage of sacred scripture (2 John 9-11) not teach what we might term a “test,” “examination” etc., as to whether or not a person is deemed by the Master as being “worthy” of that which my house (hospitality) has to offer?  This, if you read carefully, absolutely relates directly to whether or not “if anyone cometh unto you and bringeth not this teaching,” that is the teaching of Christ.  How am I to relate to one who has “progressed beyond the limits of the teaching of Christ” (Thayer’s definition of proago) and “abideth not” in the same?  It is simple! No reception is to be given, extended, to such a one.  No, not even a greeting (Greek chairo). Here the word, evidently, carries the idea of “God speed” (Vine, op. cit., p. 178).  I want to emphasize that NO ONE CAN GIVE SUCH AND BE FAITHFUL TO “THE TEACHING/DOCTRINE OF CHRIST!”  Just as surely as “no one who proceeds beyond the doctrine/ teaching of Christ and BE FAITHFUL TO THAT WHICH IS WRITTEN! Why??”
10.  “For He That Giveth Him Greeting Partaketh In His Evil Works.”  “No one is to fail to show hospitality to strangers (cf. Hebrews 13:2), but this is not just a case of hospitality!  It is the case of aiding, helping, encouraging a false teacher. That this is the case can be seen from the word “partaketh” (Greek koinoneo), which word means “a. to come into communion or fellowship , to become a sharer, be made a partner…b. to enter into fellowship, join one’s self as an associate, make one’s self a sharer, or partner…2 Jn. 11” (Thayer, pp. 351-352).
“I don’t think this will make my case any stronger than it is already, but for those who “cry out” that “fellowship” is always a noun they need to look at verse 11 of 2 John.  The word “partaketh” in its form is koinonei, and that is 3rd per. singular, present active indicative of koinoneo (which word was posted in our first section). If a person does not know that a verb “shows action,” then, indeed, he is not “as schooled” in “English” as he ought so to be.”
“I trust it is now clear why I have a section on this passage, and why I call it a “key” scripture for the battles being fought today in our own ranks.  Doctrine is important! We are to have “no fellowship” (Ephesians 5:11); “with the unfruitful works of darkness, but we are to “reprove them.” (Goebel Music, A Crucial Study of a Critical Subject: Fellowship, pp. 23-27).
I have given this lengthy quotation from Goebel Music’s pen, in order to emphasize that there is a limit to fellowship.  The Warren Christian Apologetics Center violates this limit by using false religionists and promoting false teachers in their published materials.  For this reason, they are disqualified from receiving funds from faithful Christians and churches of Christ.  Please reference my earlier blog on the Warren Christian Apologetics Center and read the Book Reviews of Nobie Stone’s book, now twice published by the WCAC, titled, Genesis 1 And Lessons From Space. Nobie Stone continues to be used as a staff writer for Sufficient Evidence, a journal published by the WCAC under the direction of Charles Pugh III even though he teaches theistic evolution and is a mitigated skeptic.

The Scriptures declare, “Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. So that we may boldly say, the Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me” (Heb. 13:5).  This is a sacred promise made to those who are the children of God.  This promise rests upon the faithfulness of God and brings peace to the soul.
The song, How Firm A Foundation, whose author is unknown, has a stanza that reads, “The soul that on Jesus leaned for repose I will not, I will not desert to its foes.  That soul, though all hell shall endeavor to shake, I’ll never, no never, no never forsake!”  It is obvious that the hymn mirrors the promise given in Heb. 13:5.
The Substance of the Promise
In the English language, two negatives nullify each other.  In the Greek, a double negative, intensifies.  In Heb. 13:5, there are two double negatives and one additional negative for a total of five negatives.  God will never, never, never, no, never forsake His children.  A double negative is the strongest form of negation in the Greek language. Two double negatives in the same passage increases the intensity of the expression.  That makes Heb. 13:5 one of the powerful passages of Scripture in the Bible!
The Basis For the Promise
The promise given in this passage of Scripture rests upon two important aspects of God’s nature.  The first is His veracity (truthfulness).  God cannot lie.  “And also the Strength of Israel will not lie n or repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent” (I Sam. 15:29).  “In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began” (Titus 1:2).  “That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us” (Heb. 6:18).  When God speaks, whether by precept or by promise, His word is true.  The second, is His fidelity.  God is faithful. “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it” (I Cor. 10:13).  The covenant keeping God promises to continually provide for His people.  The mercies of the Lord endure forever. God has never failed to keep a promise.  Our confidence is tied to God’s veracity and fidelity.
The Results of the Promise
The promise of God’s providential care reassures us and results in the following spiritual blessings.  First, we have peace.  The tension between covetousness and contentment is resolved.  Covetousness is the insatiable desire for more and more.  Contentment is satisfaction with God’s sufficiency (His grace) for our lives.  God’s promises gives us peace or tranquility of the soul as we trust in Him rather than uncertain riches.  Second, we have help.  God’s promise assures us that we will never stand alone.  The Lord is my helper!  “Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need” (Heb. 4:16).
Third, we are supplied with courage.  “I will not fear what men can do to me.”  Fearlessness grows out of the precious promise that God will never fail us.  We have courage to meet the foe, to face temptations and trials, and to face death because God will always be with us.
A Christian never stands alone.  God has promised that He will never, never, never, no, never forsake His people.

Exegetical Gems From Biblical Greek, written by Benjamin L. Merkle, was published by Baker Academic and serves as a refresher course in New Testament Greek for those who already know the Greek language.  Merkle is professor of New Testament Greek at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and has co-authored several books on the Greek language. He desires that ministers use the Greek New Testament in their personal study of the Scriptures. Exegetical Gems is a refresher course for students of the Greek New Testament and a reminder of the functional importance in biblical interpretation that the Greek New Testament adds to the biblical interpreter.  The book contains thirty-five chapters each of which focuses on two main things:  (1) an exegetical gem from the NT and (2) a review of some aspects of Greek syntax.  I have posted a book review of this work under the Book Reviews page on this blog.

The Warren Christian Apologetics Center under the direction of Charles Pugh III has been in existence for over a decade.  During this time, the Center (hereafter referred to as the WCAC) has proven through its publications and associations its true nature.  The WCAC is located at 850 Altman Ave., Parkersburg, WV 26104 and is currently housed in two trailers on a lot that once belonged to the owners of a Bob Evans restaurant which was subsequently sold and later donated by the new owner to the WCAC as a future location.  The director of the center, Charles Pugh III is largely responsible for the decisions made that give direction to the aim or purpose of the center.  The stated aim of the center is to “affirm and defend the Christian Worldview while challenging growing global influence of atheistic thought.”  The WCAC has been responsible for both publications and activities that do not uphold the Christian Worldview which can only be defined by God’s Word.  Consider the following seven glaring errors of the WCAC.
Error Number One:  Advancement of the False Theory of Theistic Evolution.  
The WCAC published a book by Nobie Stone, Genesis One And Lessons From Space (This book has been published twice by the WCAC. The first edition was published in 2014 and the second edition was published in 2017. I have written extensive reviews of each published edition and posted them under my Book Reviews page), in which the author affirms the Big Bang Theory and an old Earth view (both of which are tenets of theistic evolution).  Theistic evolutionists believe that God used evolution as His means of producing the various forms of physical life on this planet,including human life (Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, p. 233).  In five previous blogs, I have exposed the false concepts involved in the concept of theistic evolution.  Please refer to them for a thorough discussion of this topic.  In one of those blogs, I revealed that the old earth view (the view that the universe is 14 billion years old and that the earth is 4 to 5 billion years old) contradicts biblical chronology.  The WCAC by publishing and distributing a book that affirms a false view of the age of the earth (which contradicts plain statements in the Bible) contradicts its mission by compromising truth.  The Big Bang Theory has been proven both scientifically and biblically to be false.  Why would the WCAC use funds contributed to it by members of the Lord’s church and others to publish material that is blatantly false?
Error Number Two:  Errors of Epistemology
In the book by Nobie Stone, Genesis One and Lessons From Space, Stone affirms that we cannot know anything with certainty (see the second edition, p. 19).  He affirms probablism.  Epistemology is concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge, its presuppositions and basis, and the general reliability of claims to knowledge (Paul Edwards, editor, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. 3 and 4, p. 9).  Thomas Warren, for whom the WCAC is named, believed that we can know with certainty that God exists, the Bible is the Word of God and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.  It is interesting to note, that Charles Pugh III, director of the WCAC is on record as stating that the WCAC is not a cookie cutter of the apologetics of Thomas Warren (first edition, 157).  Why name the center after Thomas Warren and not represent the apologetics of Thomas Warren?  Nobie Stone denies that we can know anything with certainty.  How can the WCAC affirm the Christian Worldview and at the same time publish materials that deny we can know that God exists with absolute certainty?
Error Number Three:  Elevation of Scientific Theory Over the Scriptures
In the book by Nobie Stone, Genesis One and Lessons From Space, the author affirms that the theories of science, the theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory take primacy over the Scriptures.  Stone wrests the scriputures in Genesis 1 to fit his bias toward these scientific theories.  The scientific theories have never been proven and, yet, they are elevated over the infallible Word of God.  This causes Stone to reinterpret the days of Genesis 1.  He affirms that each “day” was an indeterminate age and not a twenty-four hour period of time.  This is commonly referred to as the “Day-Age” theory.   Denis Lamoureux in Evolutionary Creation-A Christian Approach to Evolution, states, “The hermeneutical primacy of science certainly leads to a counterintuitive reading of the Bible” (p. 175).  In order to reinterpret the Scriptures to fit scientific theories such as evolution and the Big Bang, Stone must violate several hermeneutical principles including lexical meanings and grammatical forms of the Hebrew language in which the Old Testament was written.  I would like to affirm that the Scriptures are the final authority and not science.  God cannot lie!  (I Sam. 15:29, Titus 1:2, Heb. 6:18).  God expressly states, “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 20:11).  Any theory that contradicts a plain passage of Scripture is a false theory (Thomas Warren affirms this principle in Logic and the Bible, 75,76).  The WCAC has affirmed that it will uphold the Christian Worldview.  How can you have a Christian Worldview without affirming the integrity of the Scriptures?
Error Number Four:  Practicing Ecumenism
Ecumenism is the false practice of fellowshipping denominational persons and errors without rebuke.  The WCAC is a parachurch organization.  The WCAC has attempted to legitimize its practices and open fellowship of false religion by stating that they are not the church of Christ.  They have accepted and will accept monies from any source that is friendly toward their stated purpose.  A parachurch organization is an organization that functions outside of the church but claims to be doing a work of the church.  Apologetics is a work of the church (I Pet. 3:15).  The WCAC is not the church, but claims to be doing a work of the church and so claims to help the church.  However, when the WCAC became involved in publishing and promoting religious error, it ceased being helpful to the church and became an enemy of the church.  When the WCAC began to openly fellowship those in religious error, they stopped being a friend of the church of Christ.  The open fellowship of religious error is a violation of Ephesians 5:11.  “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”  And, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?” (II Cor. 6:14-15). The WCAC demonstrated its willingness to openly fellowship religious error by hosting Devin Brown in the recent spring lectures.  Brown is a scholar from Asbury University (a Methodist school-specifically Wesleyan-Arminian).  He is an expert on C.S. Lewis.  C.S. Lewis was a theistic evolutionists who affirmed common descent believing that human beings evolved from lower life forms (monkeys to man theory).  C. S. Lewis is referred to by Brown and by Charles Pugh III as a Christian theist.  C.S. Lewis was never a member of the church of Christ. C.S. Lewis was a member of the church of Ireland which was Episcopal.  Robert Beasley in his book, Set Me Free, offers a suggestion on how members of the churches of Christ could fellowship denominational people.  He mentions parachurch organizations.  Beasley states, “There are a number of parachurch organizations that are intended not to replace the church, but to focus on particular issues confronting Christians in our modern world. The focus of these groups will be on the essential truths of the Christian faith, without delving into issues that divide denominations” (188).  Beasley suggests Promise Keepers as an example of a parachurch organization that members of the churches of Christ could fellowship.  Charles Pugh III is using the WCAC in a similar fashion.  Is there any person involved in teaching or promoting religious error that the WCAC would not fellowship?  If so, on what basis?
Error Number Five:  Misuse of Funds
The WCAC directors solicit funds from anyone who is sympathetic toward the stated purpose of the center.  They solicit funds from Christians and from churches of Christ and from non-members who are unbelievers.  This of necessity involves the attempt to combine together individuals who are both believers and unbelievers in a common religious cause.  It is an attempt to bring together the kingdom of Satan and the kingdom of God in accomplishing one cause.  This is a fundamental error of the design of the WCAC.  Jesus stated that, “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand” (Matt. 12:25).  Does this principle apply to the WCAC?  If the WCAC upholds the truth about God, Jesus Christ and the Bible, would not that very truth destroy the denominationalists who were supporting the WCAC with their money and their resources?  The WCAC uses funds contributed to it to publish religious error (Big Bang theory, old earth view, false views of epistemology–all noted earlier).  For instance, $15,000.00 has been spent to publish Nobie Stone’s book, Genesis One and Lessons from Space in the two editions printed.  How many members of the church of Christ know that the money they have contributed to the WCAC has gone to publish religious error and promote false religionists?
Error Number Six:  Hypocrisy
The WCAC fellowships the unfruitful works of darkness in order to do a work of the church!  The WCAC director pays lip service to the Bible while publishing materials that contradict plain passages of Scripture in the Bible.  The biblical definition of hypocrisy is stated by the Lord in Matthew 23:3, “All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.”  Hypocrisy involves saying one thing and doing another.  Hypocrisy is also manifested in the fundamental error of the WCAC in its attempt to bring together the kingdom of Satan and the Kingdom of God in order to accomplish a work of the church of Christ.
Error Number Seven:  Division
A sad state has developed in the churches of Christ due to the divisive nature of the WCAC.  Churches and brethren have been separated.  Lines of fellowship have been drawn.  Apologetics Centers have been pitted against each other.  For instance, Apologetics Press, in 2019 has printed five different articles upholding the young earth view which is a stated purpose of the apologetics center.  Most know that this center is closely associated with the churches of Christ.  The articles appeared in Reason and Revelation a publication of Apologetics Press.  The recent articles are:  21 Reasons To Believe The Earth is Young, Jeff Miller, Ph.D., Jan. 2019, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 2-5, 8-10.  How Long Were Adam and Eve in the Garden Before Sinning?  Jeff Miller, Ph.D., February, 2019, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 20-23.  Was the Flood Global?  Jeff Miller, Ph. D., April, 2019, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 38-47.  Behemoth and Leviathan Part I, May, 2019, vol.  39, no. 5, Dave Miller Ph. D., pp. 50-57.  Behemoth and Leviathan Part II, Dave Miller, Ph. D., June, 2019, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 62-69.  The WCAC does not uphold the young earth view as noted above as evidenced by their publication of Nobie Stone’s book, Genesis One and Lessons From Space.  Apologetics Press has also published numerous articles refuting the Big Bang Theory which was advanced by Nobie Stone in his work (I have referenced these in my reviews of both editions of Nobie Stone’s book).  This clearly pits one apologetics center against another apologetics center which is ironic since both claim to be upholding the Bible.  No parachurch organization is worth causing division in the body of Christ.

In a series of articles, we have been exposing the fallacies of Theistic Evolution.  Part V of this series, continues to reveal the false ideas inherent in the doctrine.
9.  Some Theistic Evolutionists deny substitutionary atonement.  Substitutionary atonement is the biblical doctrine that Jesus died in the place of sinners, i.e. He endured the punishment (unjustly) that sinners rightfully deserve. Jesus did this to satisfy the justice of God and provide for the atonement of sin.  Joseph Bankard on the BioLogos (a term coined by Francis Collins) website affirms: “substitutionary atonement does not fit well with the theory of evolution.”  He explains, “If evolution is true, then the universe is very old, humans evolved from primates…[and]…the Fall is not a historical event….However, if denying the historical Fall calls into question the doctrine of original sin, then it also calls into question the role of the cross of Christ within substitutionary atonement.  If Jesus didn’t die in order to overcome humanity’s original sin, then why did Jesus die?  What is Jesus, the second Adam, attempting to restore with the cross, if not the sin of the first Adam? Substitutionary atonement sees original sin as a major reason for Christ’s death. But macroevolution calls the Fall and the doctrine of original sin into question.  Thus, evolution poses a significant challenge to substitutionary atonement” (Theistic Evolution, p. 707).  Bankard affirms in Part 2 of his article that, in his alternative view of the cross, “Christ’s death was not a part of God’s divine plan” (emphasis added) (Theistic Evolution, p. 707 an article by Colin R. Reeves, “Bringing Home the Bacon: The Interaction of Science and Scripture Today). The doctrine of substitutionary atonement is taught in the Scriptures.  Peter states, “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed” (I Peter 2:24).  God’s Word declares “For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself…So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation” (Heb. 9:26,28). In refutation of Bankard’s claim that “Christ’s death was not a part of God’s divine plan” consider Peter’s remarks in Acts 2:23, “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.”  “Let God be true and every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4). With respect to substitutionary atonement, theistic evolutionists sound similar to evolutionists who are also atheists.  G. Richard Bozarth, an atheist, states, “…evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary.  Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god…If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing! (Theistic Evolution, 706). We cannot accept the claims of evolution and adhere to historical Christianity.  Theistic evolutionists attempt to marry the lie of evolution with the truth of creation.  But, they fail to realize that the result is another lie and not the truth.  They thus assault the integrity of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Theistic Evolution is the belief that God used evolution as his means of producing the various forms of physical life on this planet, including human life.  Several of the consequences of Theistic Evolution have already been considered in previous posts.  In this article, we want to consider yet another result of Theistic Evolution.
8.  Some Theistic Evolutionists deny the doctrine of the clarity of Scripture (also referred to as the perspicuity of Scripture).  Francis Collins, a theistic evolutionists, in his book, The Language of God, 153, states, “Despite twenty-five centuries of debate, it is fair to say that no human knows what the meaning of Genesis 1 and 2 was precisely intended to be.”  The word perspicuity means clarity.  To say that something is perspicacious is to say that it is clear.  The doctrine of the clarity of Scripture means that the central message of the Bible is clear and understandable and that the Bible itself can be properly interpreted in a normal, literal sense.  Genesis 1 and 2 contain the essential information  concerning the doctrine of creation.  If we affirm that no one can understand these two chapters in Genesis, we are giving up on one of the most important doctrines in the Bible.  Genesis 1 and 2 answer the question of man’s origin, nature, and relationship to his creator.  Creation is a supernatural act performed by an all-powerful, all-wise God.  The doctrine of clarity of Scripture is taught in several passages both in the Old Testament and the New Testament.  For instance, in Deut. 6:6-7, Moses instructs the Israelites to teach the Law to their children.  If God intended for children to learn the Law, then, certainly adults can learn it.  The creation of all things by God is one of the things that children can learn.  Paul told Timothy, “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (II Tim. 3:15).  The phrase, holy scriptures, is a reference to the Old Testament which includes an account of the creation.  Paul knew that children could understand the Scriptures.  Understanding God’s Word is essential to being wise.  “Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17).  The person who knows and obeys the sayings of Jesus is a wise man (Matt. 7:24-27).  Jesus said that knowing the truth is essential to salvation (John 8:32).  Jesus also referenced Gen. 1 and 2 in Matt. 19:4 and understood it literally.  Spiritual discernment involves knowing good from evil (Heb. 5:14).  Paul states, “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (II Cor. 4:6).  Paul’s mission was to open the eyes of the Gentiles, “To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive the forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me” (Acts 26:18).  Paul opened their eyes through the proclamation of the gospel of Christ (I Cor. 1:23 and 2:2). The apostle Paul referenced Adam as a historical person and called him the “first man” (I Cor. 15:45; Rom. 5:12-21).  Both Jesus and Paul understand Genesis 1 and 2.  Why doesn’t Francis Collins?  Collins attempts to escape into agnosticism because he will not elevate the truth of the Scriptures over his own interpretation of scientific data.