Home > Brandenburg, Fundamentalism, The Word, Truth > A Paradigm of Evangelical Unbelief

A Paradigm of Evangelical Unbelief

June 23, 2010

Faith believes what God said just because He said it, not because it’s been proven to us or because we’ve experienced something.  Since faith puts confidence in what God said as true only because He said it, it is faith in things that we cannot see.  At one time, theology was the queen of the sciences because God’s Word was considered evidence.  The Enlightenment and its consequences changed this way of thinking for professing Christians.

A big clash exists in evangelicalism over the age of the earth—new earthers versus old earthers.  The new earthers take the Genesis account literally.  The old earthers are influenced by “human observation and discovery.”  For instance, they look at the time it takes for light to travel from distant stars and assume that the universe must be billions of years old or else we wouldn’t be able to see these stars through a telescope.  So there’s a challenge from science to the record of Genesis 1-3.

Many more evangelicals believe in evolution than what you would even imagine, and especially among the so-called elite and scholarly.  This debate among them elevated in March when a well-respected Old Testament Hebrew scholar, Bruce Waltke, posted a pro-evolution statement on a well-visited evangelical website.   Several conservative evangelicals have reacted to his statement in very heated fashion.  Rightly so.  I don’t want to get into extreme detail here, but the paradigm for evangelicals and their faith changed well before this debate began.  I do think we have some pot calling the kettle black occurring here.

Evangelicals long ago started discarding scriptural and historic belief for sight.   Nothing is more important to faith than the Bible.  The Bible promises its own perfect preservation.  Evangelicals and fundamentalists took this same paradigm of unbelief long before Bruce Waltke and these old-earth evangelicals.  They now say that the Bible never really taught preservation per se.  Well, not that the Bible wasn’t preserved—it was, just in a way that you have no hope of a perfect Bible and the one you have you really don’t know the number of mistakes.  Just in too, that’s what the Bible has always taught.  No one has said this before, but as I speak, well, that’s what it says about itself.  I know that some evangelicals and fundamentalists are now saying that they are getting their doctrine of the preservation of Scripture from the Bible.

Having said that, most evangelicals and fundamentalists don’t believe in the perfect preservation of Scripture.   Kevin Bauder represents their position on this when he writes in Only One Bible? (p. 155) that Scripture does not affirm that “any singled printed text preserves all of the words and only all the words of the autographa.”  He continues:  “Such a specific affirmation clearly lies outside of the teaching of Scripture.”  Those two statements he makes in the first paragraph of his chapter, “An Appeal to Scripture.”  The very next line, which is the first sentence of the second paragraph, he writes:  “If the preservation of the Word of God depends upon the exact preservation of the words of the original documents, then the situation is dire.”  That last statement is the rub for evangelicals and fundamentalists.

From Bauder’s statements, really just quoted as a representation, because this is the stand of almost all of evangelicalism today, you can see that they depend on their sight and their observation, i. e., their scientific discovery, for their position on preservation.  Again and again, evangelicals say that miracle was not the means of God’s preservation.  No miracle involved.  Supernaturalism was not the means.  You would see this many times in Only One Bible? This was not always the case among Christians. At one time, pre-enlightenment and textual criticism, relying on the Bible alone for their doctrine (sola scriptura), they believed in the perfect preservation of Scripture.

Preservation passages are being twisted with the same pattern as creation passages.  If you are going to discard the promises of preservation found in the Bible for the science of textual criticism, that without theological presupposition proudly follows the “evidence,” then next will come other doctrines of scripture like creation.  That’s not all, of course, because the abandonment of a grammatical-historical interpretation of Genesis 1-3 undermines the entire rest of the Bible, including the gospel itself.

A second part to this paradigm is the new evangelical emphasis on primary versus secondary doctrines.  They rank doctrines for the purpose of cobbling together alliances.  These old earth evangelicals want to keep the faux unity between them and the new-earthers.  They attempt to do this by categorizing this creation doctrine as a non-essential.  I read this all over. They insist that it does not affect the gospel, and since the gospel is “first in importance,” the old earth position should not separate them from the new-earth evangelicals.  They just differ on a tertiary issue.  This, of course, is ripped right out of the conservative evangelical and fundamentalist playbook.  If the conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists do not agree to see the nuance between the two beliefs, and not to agree to disagree, they’re the ones causing unnecessary division in “the Lord’s body.”  Evangelicals and fundamentalists don’t mind that you believe in the perfect preservation of Scripture.  They just don’t want you to cause division over it.  Keep the peace.

So let’s review.   Evangelicals already moved into the conform-scripture-to-science column with textual criticism.  The doctrine of perfect preservation was as firmly established as a Christian belief as teaching on creation from Genesis 1-3.  So here we have just more of the same.  And now we can still all get along because none of these are essential doctrines.  Chalk it all up to a paradigm of evangelical unbelief.

  1. June 23, 2010 at 5:50 pm

    It’s interesting to me that Ken Ham (Answers in Genesis) would agree with you that the doctrine of Creation and taking a literal understanding of Genesis is a “primary” doctrine. I think he would even say that it’s foundational to giving, understanding, and believing the gospel. To me most of his arguments for Creation parallel exactly with arguments for perfect preservation.

  2. June 23, 2010 at 6:17 pm

    Jeff, I don’t actually believe in the primary-secondary set-up. A lot of conservative evangelicals think it’s a primary doctrine, but they are being hoisted on their own petard by doing so.

  3. June 23, 2010 at 8:52 pm

    Kent, I respect you a lot, but I guess we disagree on this issue. IMO, using YEC as a litmus test for inerrancy is basically atheism masquerading as “faith”:

  4. June 24, 2010 at 1:11 am


    How much young earth defense have you read? One issue that sticks out to me is that by one man, Adam, came sin and by sin came death. How do you deal with that?

    • June 24, 2010 at 9:51 pm

      Hi Kent,

      I’ve read a lot on the topic of YEC, and still read at least 2 essays a week. As I mentioned in the comments of that post, I deeply respect a number of people who hold to YEC and consider them to be sincere. So I stay current on what’s being claimed.

      Regarding Adam, I fully agree that “by one man, Adam, came sin and by sin came death.” This is 100% necessary for Christian orthodoxy.

      • Moses McKnight
        June 26, 2010 at 9:59 pm

        If that is so, then OEC is heteodoxy. Death before Adam is an integral and necessary part of OEC, as is a rejection of a global flood.

  5. Moses McKnight
    June 24, 2010 at 11:29 am


    After reading the article you linked to I would have to question the intelligence of whoever wrote it – or honesty. The argument of YEC that to deny YEC erodes Biblical authority, is 180 degrees away from “If you believe that the Bible has no authority except when science aligns with it completely” For the writer of that article to not see that, calls his intelligence and/or his honesty into serious question.

    The argument rather is this: if the Bible teaches YEC, then science is wrong if it says otherwise. This is properly putting our faith in God and His word, rather than man and his theories and fallen reason. So in fact, those who deny YEC are the ones acting out of unbelief and atheism. They are the ones who will not believe God’s word if science claims to have proven otherwise, but will try and figure out ways around the clear teaching of scripture.

    Furthermore, this issue is of critical importance, because (as history has proven over and again), if the biblical account of creation can be explained away by whatever notion (and there are many ways of doing it), then so can any other part of scripture that someone doesn’t like or want to believe.

    Heb. 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

    • June 24, 2010 at 10:17 pm

      Moses, it was actually I who wrote the article. You’re welcome to continue calling me stupid and/or dishonest. But my IQ is 160, and I don’t think I was being dishonest. The blog post was reacting to an exact quote from Mark Snoeberger, who is a fundamentalist professor of systematic theology at Detroit Baptist seminary; “Conceding that YEC may be wrong would irreparably erode Biblical authority”.

      Furthermore, this issue is of critical importance, because (as history has proven over and again), if the biblical account of creation can be explained away by whatever notion (and there are many ways of doing it), then so can any other part of scripture that someone doesn’t like or want to believe.

      Do you seriously believe that, if you can align materialism with YEC, people will stop interpreting the Bible to ignore things they don’t want to believe? This doesn’t seem like something a Christian would say, at all. You’re elevating “science” to the level of a deity with the power to compel men. Not even professional scientists take such a high view of science.

      That’s why I think YEC have fallen into a trap. Their entire evangelism plan relies on them changing scientific consensus.

      • Moses McKnight
        June 26, 2010 at 9:47 pm

        If you are offended that I would call you stupid or dishonest, I would say that your accusation of atheism is far worse, and is simply slander.

        I understood your argument, and that you were reacting to a quote from somebody. What you still don’t seem to understand or are purposely twisting is the YEC position and argument. The fundamental position of YEC is that the Bible teaches YEC. Mark may not have stated that explicitly in the particular article you are quoting, but that is inescapably implicit in his statement. So the logic is: if the Bible teaches YEC, then to say that science is right and YEC may be wrong; irreparably erodes Biblical authority. But the Bible is the authority, therefore YEC is right, and science is wrong.

        In other words, if you are willing to call God a liar when He said He created the universe in six days, then there is no reason not to disregard everything else He says.

        I’m not sure what you mean by “align materialism with YEC”. I realize that people who don’t believe God will ignore anything they don’t want to believe, but for any Christian to dis-believe any part of Scripture is a major stumbling block both to themselves and to others. Once you don’t believe God in one place, you have no foundation or reason to believe Him in any other. Once again, the false charge of elevating science is a twisting of the facts beyond belief. I say that any “science” that contradicts scripture is “science falsely so called” as scripture puts it, and should be ignored, or thoroughly refuted so others don’t believe those lies.

        As far as your last statement, it is again a complete twisting of the facts. YEC evangelism does not rely on scientific consensus at all. The leaders in YEC went against almost *all* scientific consensus, and are still in the great minority in the scientific community. The reason they believed YEC is because the Bible taught it, and then the more they looked at the evidence the more they found the claims of evolution and OEC to be false. To use the observable facts of nature and show how they support and in many cases require YEC, and how they refute OEC or evolution, is not depending on “scientific consensus”, or even the facts of nature. God points man to His creation all throughout the Bible, to learn things about Him, and to prove and illustrate points He makes. Paul quoted from a heathen poet and used other examples from current society where he preached; but that does not mean he was “depending on the current society” for his evangelism plan.

        The real trap is OEC. This is just a very thin veil over a firm faith in evolutionary “science”, and was it only conceived of in order to try and fit evolution with the Bible. Anything in the Bible that this “science” contradicts will be explained away (such as the flood).

  6. Joshua
    June 24, 2010 at 5:48 pm

    I think you need to take into account the blessing/curse of the creation science movement. I’m not sure I would have had the faith to believe in a literal 7 day creation without their arguments and research. I think most evangelicals and fundamentalists are the same. This Greek needed wisdom to help his unbelief.

    Basically, with the CSM I think God took mercy on a generation of Thomas’s and now we can all believe because we have seen … seen that science can back up what God said. Many pretend it’s noble fidism and faith when actually Ken Ham and AIG let them put their fingers in the wounds and proved to their Greek minds that this is wisdom.

    But they’ve missed the lesson intended for Thomas. He needed to just stop trusting his sight and start trusting God. Evo’s and some fundy’s missed it too – CSM showed us we could trust the Bible whatever evidence might be levied against it. We are supposed to take faith and apply it in every area of Scripture.

    Enter SI and friends. They’ll die on the YEC hill because it’s been prove by beloved science, but they call it faith. Pastor Blumer is 4 posts in to why you don’t have to accept what Scripture says about preservation. Multiple verses examined and approaches found whereby you don’t have to disagree with established “scientific” belief on the Bible. Mark it down, without the CSM, the next series would do the same thing to Genesis chapter 1.

    That isn’t faith folks. The Creation Science Movement is a blessing and a testimony against the scoffers but it is also a rebuke to faithless, Greek minded Christians who demand wisdom before faith will follow. Just like Jesus showed Thomas and then rebuked him, so we have been blessed and rebuked. Many just grab hold of the blessing and ignore the rebuke.

  7. June 24, 2010 at 11:03 pm


    Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I understand that you believe that there was first the one man, Adam, his sin, and then death. But how does that square with old earth creationism? Unless I’m mistaken, don’t old earthers believe that death came first and then came Adam?

  8. June 24, 2010 at 11:10 pm


    It seems that the argument between young earth and old earth, perfect preservation and imperfect preservation, is all about science. I don’t think you start and end with scripture and get old earth. And I don’t think you start and end with scripture and get imperfect preservation.

    • Joshua Allen
      June 24, 2010 at 11:42 pm

      Yes, exactly. Why not “start and end with scripture?”. Why bring science into it at all? Scientists sometimes attack Christianity, to be sure. But it feels like some Christians have been baited into counterattacking, which only legitimizes the false idea that theology must reconcile with materialism.

      FWIW, I think the Bible is very explicit about Adam and the theological significance is clear. On the other hand, the Bible is not very explicit about the precise geological age of the earth, and the numerical age doesn’t seem to underlie any specific theological point. So I’m not convinced that God intended to communicate the precise geological age of the earth to us in the Bible. If it ends up being theologically significant, that would raise my confidence that God really intended to tell us the exact numerical age, and I would side with YEC. But unless it is shown to be so, I don’t buy that this is about inerrancy.

    • Joshua
      June 27, 2010 at 7:53 am

      I do completely agree with this Kent. It was what I was trying to communicate, but it might not have come through clearly.

      We should believe in YEC and PTP because it’s what the Bible teaches. But I think most folks feel comfortable being strongly YEC not because it’s Bible, but because they have some science to back em. These same folks will then turn around and deny PTP because they don’t think it has the same scientific backing. Ultimately it shows what they really trust in – science is the decider for them. It shouldn’t be so.

      • June 27, 2010 at 12:27 pm

        Joshua, I agree with this, and this is a major part of what I’m trying to say. Science is, by definition, mutable. Why would be use something mutable as a key defense of our theology? It reminds me of the way that Iranaeus used the existence of 4 corners of the world to defend that there were exactly 4 canonical gospels. He was anchoring the Canon in the accepted science of the day; which proved to be quicksand. Then, people starting questioning the Canon, based on the fact that there were no longer 4 corners. This wouldn’t have happened if he hadn’t made the linkage.

  9. Joshua Allen
    June 24, 2010 at 11:21 pm

    Kent Brandenburg :
    Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I understand that you believe that there was first the one man, Adam, his sin, and then death. But how does that square with old earth creationism? Unless I’m mistaken, don’t old earthers believe that death came first and then came Adam?

    I’ve never read that about OEC, but I will double check. That would clearly be wrong.

  10. June 25, 2010 at 12:43 pm


    My second comment, the one to “Joshua” was to the other Joshua and I was differentiating you two from one another by calling you “JS” and him “Joshua,” so that comment was to him. However, I have a comment for you as far as the Bible telling us the age of earth. Based on what you’ve said, you’ve probably read more than me on the age of earth. I’ve taught through all of Genesis once and then the first 12 chapters another time very slowly. When you said the Bible wasn’t clear on age of earth, that didn’t ring true with me. Here’s what came to mind: we can calculate the age of the earth by adding the ages of the generations of the people in the genealogies. Why isn’t that satisfactory to someone who believes the Bible is true?

    • June 25, 2010 at 1:08 pm

      Oh, sorry — that’s even why I switched to JS, to disambiguate from the other Joshua.

      Personally, I think people are missing the point when they try to use the genealogies to calculate the age of the earth. The genealogies often serve a very important theological purpose; for example, supporting the point that “all men descend from Noah”. Our common ancestry in Noah is absolutely fundamental, so I don’t see why we let that be subordinated by some irrelevant bickering about geological ages.

      There are also inconsistencies in genealogies in the Bible; between numbers and chronicles, for example. Far from being a sign of “errancy”, I believe that God very deliberately puts certain seemingly inconsistent things in the Bible. For example, there are two different stories about how Saul died. I think that is very important, and is not a mistake.

      In the case of genealogies, I believe that God put those genealogies there for good reason, and I’m not convinced that one of them is “calculate the geological age of the earth”. We’ve got tons of Biblical support that the genealogies are there to show our heritage in Adam and Noah; Christ’s heritage from David, and so on. But precious little Biblical support for the use of the genealogy as a text about materialist geology.

  11. June 25, 2010 at 1:34 pm


    I’m not saying there is a point of figuring out the age of the earth in the genealogies, but, nevertheless, the genealogies are there. So if we say old earth, we’re clashing with them. When we start questioning the credibility of numbers in scripture, no matter how we count them, we’re still not getting an old earth. I’ve got a problem with a johnny-come-lately old earth position as well in the realm of a testimony of young earth in the history of Christian doctrine. Young earth has been the biblicist position through history. If we’re going to overturn history, we better be showing some convincing biblical evidence of old earth. Old earth, however, does nothing more than throw questions and doubt at the new earth position and then turns to science. Old earth hasn’t come close to meeting the burden of proof necessary to overturn the biblical and historic new earth position.

  12. J. Paul Hornick
    June 25, 2010 at 4:47 pm

    “we can calculate the age of the earth by adding the ages of the generations of the people in the genealogies.” Kepler did that – he calculated the year of Creation to be 4004 BC – according to Jewish tradition, it would be October (just to be precise.

  13. June 26, 2010 at 10:32 pm

    Moses McKnight :
    If that is so, then OEC is heteodoxy. Death before Adam is an integral and necessary part of OEC, as is a rejection of a global flood.

    You’ve asserted; where is the proof? The idea that Adam could’ve died before he was born seems very odd to me; even for OECs.

  14. June 26, 2010 at 10:36 pm

    Moses McKnight :
    If you are offended that I would call you stupid or dishonest, I would say that your accusation of atheism is far worse, and is simply slander.

    I wasn’t offended. And yes, I do believe that YECs are prideful tools of Satan who are complicit in undermining the authority of scripture. You’re welcome to disagree.

  15. June 26, 2010 at 10:58 pm

    J. Paul Hornick :
    “we can calculate the age of the earth by adding the ages of the generations of the people in the genealogies.” Kepler did that – he calculated the year of Creation to be 4004 BC – according to Jewish tradition, it would be October (just to be precise.

    This is not correct. Kepler estimated 3992 BC. Ussher estimated 4004 BC. Other Bible-based estimates range from 5800 BC to 6500 BC. The fact that there are differing estimates within YEC should demonstrate that the Bible is less than explicit about the age of the earth.

    Professing a specific geological age of the earth was never part of any Christian creed, nor part of any Sunday school lessons or homilies. It was simply unimportant for more than 1800 years. So it seems to me that the “johnny come lately” is this weird insistence on YEC.

  16. June 26, 2010 at 11:11 pm


    I’ve watched this all unfold closely enough to know that young earth was ‘the’ position. And then came old earth. And for there to be 1800 years, you would exclude Ussher. I don’t think there was much of an insistence because, that I know of, there was no record of opposition to a grammatical-historical take on Genesis 1-3. You’ve still got those ages of the patriarchs. You’ve got the number 480 in 1 Kings 6:1, and from there, you can’t get an old earth if you take Genesis at face value.

    Ussher died in 1656. Since the printing press and pre-enlightenment, hundreds of years, we only have young earth—in other words, when we’ve got stuff to read about. And those hundreds of years are significant when we talk about the history of Christian doctrine.

    And then we’ve got the problem of the old earth people saying first came death, then came Adam. This seems as though it would be significant, even for you.

    I haven’t heard any answers to my above. A number from 3992 to 6500 is still young earth.

    We should take a Hebrews 11:1-3 approach to Genesis 1.

    • June 26, 2010 at 11:36 pm

      Yes, Kepler and Ussher were both less than 1800 years after Christ. But I don’t think it was considered important until close to 1900 AD. It’s a modern innovation to teach Sunday school kids that the earth is 6,500 years old, or to use the age of the earth in sermons.

      Regarding the variance of the estimates, I’m just pointing out that it’s not very explicit. I believe strongly in the perspicuity of scripture, and I believe that God would’ve plainly communicated something like this if it was important. It took Ussher, one of the greatest scholars of his age, nearly a decade to extrapolate his age of the earth.

      Anyway, I agree with you about humans experiencing death before Adam. I’ve never seen anyone say that, and it would certainly seem wrong to me.

  17. June 27, 2010 at 2:55 am


    I don’t think they attack Romans 5 and 8. They ignore it in their approach to Genesis. Part of perspecuity is that God will not deny Himself. Scripture is going to harmonize.

  18. June 27, 2010 at 7:00 am

    This comment thread has definitely left the ideas of the original post, but no one seems to mind. So I’ll add a simple question I’ve always thought about in the “old earth/new earth” debate. I will admit that I’m not the most “read up” on this topic, but when I answer this question the idea of an old earth created a “short” time ago makes perfect sense….

    How old was Adam the day after God created him?

    Of course we know he was one day old, but I’m sure he looked and acted like a mature human being, not like a one-day old baby.

  19. June 27, 2010 at 12:19 pm

    Bro. Brandenburg have you read John Walton’s book The LOst World of Genesis one? If so what are your thoughts?

  20. d4v34x
    June 28, 2010 at 11:07 am

    Kent, maybe in a future post you can address some of the chronology inconsistencies various evangelicals (and maybe fundies too, not sure) state they see between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

    Just to state: I am a YEC who believes (with Ken Hamm) that there has been some “evolution” in the last 6000 or so years.

  21. PS Ferguson
    June 30, 2010 at 1:53 am

    I have recently reviewed “Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth” edited by a mixture of Neo-Evangelical and Fundamental luminaries. It gives an excellent example of a biblical presentation of presupposing the Scriptures in all thinking and practice as the ultimate criterion of truth. The writers consistently apply this presuppositional approach in respect of inerrancy, infallibility, and creationism in this volume. In doing so, they forcefully reject allowing unbelieving scientific opinions to have an absolute a priori veto over how we interpret Scripture and how the church has historically interpreted Genesis 1-11. However, save for the late Henry Morris in the foreword, all of the contributors reject such an approach when dealing with the preservation of the text they base their exegetical arguments from. They are paradoxically comfortable with embracing a text based upon unbelievers’ textual critical presupposition that violates what Scripture teaches and what the church has always believed. In doing so, they carelessly surrender the Biblical promises on preservation and the historical doctrinal statements of our Reformed forefathers. Just as God promised He inspired every Word so He also promised He would preserve every Word and make it available. God’s inspired and preserved Words are not in some nebulous, non-existent “originals” that no one has ever seen or ever will see.

    Despite what the Scriptures say, the majority of the contributors ignore these explicit biblical promises and embrace the prevailing views of unbelieving textual critics in determining the latest edition of the evolutionary Greek Text. However, a lesser authority cannot authenticate a greater authority. Such an inconsistent approach invariably opens the door to all forms of pernicious naturalistic reasoning. Ironically, this is what the writers accuse the theistic evolutionists of promulgating vis à vis creationism. For, if you adopt naturalistic premises to guide you on the doctrine of preservation that trumps the promises of Scripture then it is wholly consistent not to let it guide you on other doctrines such as creationism, inspiration, inerrancy etc. There must be a faithful and consistent exegesis of the Bible’s promises of the doctrine of preservation based on the hermeneutical methods employed and conclusions of creationism in Genesis. Is the doctrine of the preservation truly an anomalous exception to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and the doctrine of Sufficiency of Scripture? Is our faith in God’s Words predicated on an evolving and mutating text leading to confusion, doubt, and uncertainty?

    The fellow-contributors to this volume need to be consistent and deal similarly with the pernicious textual critical ideas of rationalistic textual criticism introduced by Warfield et al to usurp the historic Reformed views of the doctrine of preservation. For every Charles Templeton who rejected his faith after being taught evolutionary principles at Princeton, there is a Bart Ehrman who apostasies after embracing rationalistic textual criticism at Princeton also. Terry Mortenson comment on Templeton is equally apposite for Ehrman, “false ideas have terrible consequences” (p104). Satan questioned God’s promises and there is a long chain of his theological descendants out there.

    The ultimate irony is that the contributors to this volume pride themselves as exegetically “defending Genesis” yet are not even in agreement as to the exact Words of what they say they are defending (and indeed never can be). In doing so, they are not protecting the integrity of the faith; they are badly compromising it. Do they think they can restrict the hegemony of science over Scripture to the realm of preservation issues? The idea of a doctrine of preservation which leaves people in a state of doubt and confusion is contrary to the very nature of a doctrine. A traveller lost in a foreign city seeking directions to a specific location would be confused and dismayed to be told there were numerous theories how to find this location but no one can ever be sure. Likewise, those seeking the Words of God today need the assurance they have the authority of God speaking in His Words. The tragic result of such dichotomous thinking is that the true church is today divided over the issue of origins and preservation and critically cannot speak with one voice to a sceptical world. If the anti-preservationists simply ignore, distort or interpret superficially the biblical presuppositions on the textual question, then they cannot expect preservationists to be charitable on their provisional claims. How can the Bible’s theology be true if the historical events on which the theology is based are false? Perfect preservationists say to those who reject prefect preservation the testimony of God, “This is my beloved Son: hear Him” (Luke 9:35) for this Son said, “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matt 5:18).

  22. July 1, 2010 at 12:52 am


    Good point on the Adam thing.




    Maybe we’ll take a month on this sometime.


    I agree. Thanks for the material.

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: