Dr. Michael Reeves: The Reformation applied to life and ministry today.
Applying the Reformation
Reply
A Slander on the Oyster
“You cannot be truly efficient ministers if you are not ‘apt to teach.’ You know ministers who have mistaken their calling, and evidently have no gifts for it: make sure that none think the same of you. There are brethren in the ministry whose speech is intolerable; either they rouse you to wrath, or else they send you to sleep. No chloral can ever equal some discourses in sleep-giving properties; no human being, unless gifted with infinite patience, could long endure to listen to them, and nature does well to give the victim deliverance through sleep. I heard one say the other day that a certain preacher had no more gifts for the ministry than an oyster, and in my own judgment this was a slander on the oyster, for that worthy bivalve shows great discretion in his openings, and knows when to close. If some men were sentenced to hear their own sermons, it would be a righteous judgement upon them, and they would soon cry out with Cain, ‘My punishment is greater than I can bear.’ Let us not fall under the same condemnation.”
– C. H. Spurgeon
For Whom Did Christ Die?
Theological Triage (Re-visited)
Dr. James White:
*Note* “MB” refers to Dr. Michael Brown
I wrote two pretty lengthy notes this morning that are hidden away in comment threads (even took me a while to find one of them). Please allow me to post them so I don’t have to rewrite them (or search for them) over and over again. Both written to fellow believers—well, at least I accept THEM as believers, whether they return the favor is, these days, unknown.
Let’s set the record straight, shall we, brethren?
What I am defending is not the charismatic movement. I have no desire to see NAR concepts advance, join them to orthodoxy, or anything else.
What I am very concerned about is the willingness on the part of many on “our side” to quite simply *add to the gospel* a particular view of spiritual gifts. We can pretend cessationism is as clear in Scripture as the Trinity or justification, but brethren, it isn’t. I will defend it, but it is far more in the realm of, say, ecclesiological issues as far as biblical clarity and certainty is concerned than it is the realm of the Trinity or the resurrection.
I surely cannot dismiss someone from Christian fellowship over the issue—though let’s be honest, MANY on “our side” do that, whether they admit to it or not. As such, they are making a view of spiritual gifts *basic and fundamental* rather than disputable. Given the rise of the “only Calvinists are Christians” movement in our day, we should be very sensitive to anything that adds to the gospel.
I am likewise very concerned about the simple issue of honesty here. On my program MB denied being a NAR apostle. He plainly admitted that he has met with, talked with, agreed with, and disagreed with, men who ARE properly identified with NAR. But anyone who listens to him regularly, reads his books, etc., would plainly see the arc of his thought and teaching being quite different. Being a Charismatic his entire adult life, he does not have the concept of separationism, so prevalent in the thought of fundamentalism, on the theological level (from the world, yes, but fundamentalism historically includes the concept in the theological realm, even to the point of the eschatological realm as well). Why do we allow non-Charismatics the freedom to differ, but deny it to Charismatics? We can have conferences with Reformed Baptists, Presbyterians, New Covenant guys, even conservative Anglicans and Lutherans, and “it’s all good.” But not those nasty Charismatics! Nope, evidently, those spiritual gifts are more basic and fundamental than….well, baptism itself, church government, and even sacramentalism! Really? Seems pretty inconsistent there, doesn’t it?
Next we have the allegation of the “ignorance card.” MB’s focus is Jewish evangelism, missions, etc. I have spent time with him, so I know his schedule and he does not sit around watching TBN. Again, because of the difference in background, it is not a part of his thinking, “Hmm, I better check up on what everyone else is teaching at this upcoming conference.” As he said on my show, if someone pointed to, say, a Trinity denier or the like at a future conference, this would cause him to withdraw, but he simply does not feel the compulsion that *we do* (to some extent—I have not looked at every sermon by every man speaking at G3 in a couple of weeks) to be “careful of the optics.” The idea that “you implicitly endorse and promote every person who speaks at every conference you speak at (maybe even if it was the year before or after!)” is not a part of his thinking. You may wish it was, but it isn’t. He wants to get his message out, whether it be his message of holiness, against the concept of hyper-grace (funny how “our side” utterly ignores how he is spot-on on that topic, since that is basically the charismatic version of non-Lordship salvation teaching), his moral and ethical emphasis (homosexuality, transgenderism) or Jewish evangelism. He really doesn’t care too much about the pet projects of the other speakers. “But he should!” we scream. If that’s enough to send him off to hell, well, I better stop now so I can start examining every single thing every man at G3 has written and preached over the past decade.
I realize none of you know MB personally, have never met him, etc. Most of you have never cracked the binding of one of his books, listened to him debating homosexuals or rabbis, etc. and etc. All you can see is Brownsville or Benny Hinn—can’t even be bothered to listen to what he said about the Hinn encounter on the DL a few days ago. I know most of you just can’t even muster enough fight against your revulsion to go, “Yeah, OK, he pretty well slam dunked that grave sucking thing.” I get it. You are simply unable to get past your associationalism, your separationism, and the bad experiences you’ve had in the past with “them.” Got it. Can’t help you there.
But if you can listen to the beginning of the program where we went over the REAL fundamentals, the heart and soul of the faith (and later our discussion on Scriptural sufficiency), and then turn around and say, “Yeah, yeah, no big deal—he’s still on his way to hell because of his views on this topic over here,” are you really ready to defend your ADDITION of that topic to the gospel itself? This is my concern, as I have been many times excluded from the kingdom by others who make their particular pet peeve definitional.
I am uncertain why there seems to be such a bias in the minds of our listeners, though I am developing a theory about it. I believe MB’s confession of faith. I believe he is a Christian. Now, if you are straight up honest and say, “No Charismatics are Christians,” then at least you are consistent in rejecting MB’s confession of faith. But thankfully, most thoughtful Christians recognize the real problem there: it adds new parameters to the gospel, and, of course, would have been a meaningless standard in the apostolic age. I truly do believe the sign gifts were temporary, but can I prove that on the level I can prove the Trinity or justification?
Anyone who thinks they can is deceiving themselves, in my opinion. I explained at the start of the program my purpose: ChurchWatch attacked MB and said he has a defective Christology and a defective soteriology. So I invited him on to discuss those first and foremost, and we clearly documented that the citations given and the arguments made were grossly fallacious. Then we moved on to the NAR stuff, and surely the materials I have seen from people on that topic have once again demonstrated a massive willingness to use guilt by association arguments on the part of otherwise sound Christian ministries. Given that I am the target of such argumentation daily, I’m rather adept at noting it.
In any case, it seems like my friends cannot differentiate between “MB is a Christian with whom I share a common commitment to the Lordship of Jesus” and “MB is a Reformed Baptist scholar.” Even MB pointed out that he could never preach in my church. I am not trying to make him out to be a Calvinist, and we have been very open about our differences. But for many in my camp, it is simply impossible to accept that someone in the OTHER camp could be as smart as MB is, as well read as MB is, and yet not “see” what we “see.” So, he must be lying, must be two-faced, etc., when the reality is, he does not share our separationist presuppositions. He does not feel the need to examine the sermons of every person at every conference he attends—then again, I don’t either, but I would have a much higher concern about the topic than he does. He views it as “I am responsible for what I say, not what others might say” while I would have a much deeper concern about “that other speaker is dangerously off on topic X.” There is a spectrum here.
I know RB’s who will not speak at a conference with Presbyterians because they believe baptism is so fundamentally basic that they cannot stretch that far—and vice versa. Sadly, there are many appearing on the scene today who limit their associations completely to 5-point Calvinists. We hopefully can see the foolishness of such a position, but where you draw the line is going to be a matter of debate. I draw one line for cooperation, one line for ecclesiology, and one line for salvation. MB is on “my side of the line” for salvation (he plainly affirms the fundamentals of the faith) and cooperation (we can defend the Trinity together, debate homosexuals, etc.). But we can’t be members of the same church—there is a necessary distinction to be made at that point. Naive as I might have been, I used to think these distinctions were a given, but obviously, in today’s world, many are not willing to make said distinctions.
Thomas S. Monson and the Mormonism he served
Dr. James White:
There is simply no question in my mind that Joseph Smith did not expect his “work” to continue into the future. He left no meaningful mechanism for the continuance of that work in reference to its leadership, resulting in the initial split right after his death. But the immediate leadership of the group that went to Salt Lake came up with no better ideas, and surely the system they established which continues to this day is a horrific one. By elevating the longest-serving apostles to the heights of power the LDS Church finds itself constantly led by extremely elderly men in the very twilight of their lives. Normally these men have severe physical limitations and can hardly provide what would be called dynamic leadership. This has surely played a part in the decline of Mormonism—not a decline in sheer numbers, but in its growth rate and surely its cohesiveness. Mormonism is a religion wandering about without guidance and direction, its past catching up, its future uncertain. The back door has become as large as the front, to be sure.
When you think of someone like Thomas S. Monson, who just passed away, you cannot help but feel a deep pain at a life lived in service to falsehood. False religion is a judgement from God, and Monson’s life is a testimony to the enslavement that false religion brings. Outward morality is insufficient before a holy God, and surely the doctrinal system to which he was dedicated precluded him from worshipping the one true God the founder of his religion specifically denied existed. It should bring deep sadness to our hearts to consider how many times he uttered the name “Jesus Christ” and in each and every instance he was referring to a fictional character who does not and never did exist.
Oh the impact of false religion! It is not that Monson did not know the deep secrets of Mormonism—he surely did. He fully knew its theology, its teaching that God was once a man, and that men can become gods. He was responsible for his following of such teachings. But he was trained to do so from his mother’s knee, and we are truly left to weep for those many millions who walk the same path. If Monson’s death does not sober you and cause you once again to pray that God would bring the gospel with power to the LDS people, you may well have a major problem in the motivations department of your soul.
Pray for the Mormon people, and pray for those brave souls who minister to them faithfully, not just in Utah (though those up there surely need our regular prayer support!) but around the world. May God be pleased to draw many unto Himself in a true knowledge of the one true God who is not an exalted man living on a planet circling a start named Kolob, but is the eternal, unchanging God, maker of all things.
The Pastor and the Church in Disciple-Making
Mark Dever: From the Desiring God 2013 Conference for Pastors.
1. Centrality of the Church in Disciple-Making
Centrality of the Church in Disciple-Making from Desiring God on Vimeo.
2. Connecting the Dots Between Shepherding, Disciple-Making, and Meaningful Membership
Connecting the Dots Between Shepherding, Disciple-Making, and Meaningful Membership from Desiring God on Vimeo.
Would You Please Just Grow Up!
The Letter Kills But The Spirit Gives Life
Charles Hodge on 2 Corinthians 3:6:
An Exposition of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d., 56-58 (Language modernized by Nate Milne where necessary).
For the letter (i.e., the law) kills, but the spirit (i.e., the gospel) gives life. This is the reason why God has made Paul the minister of the Spirit. “God had made us able minsters not of the law but of the gospel, for the law kills, but the gospel gives life.” This passage and the following context present two important questions. First, “In what sense does the law kill?” And second, “How is it that the apostle attributes to the Mosaic system this purely legal character, when he elsewhere so plainly teaches that the gospel was witnessed or taught both in the law and the prophets?”
As to the former of these questions, the answer furnished by the Scriptures is plain. The law demands perfect obedience. It says, “Do this and live” (Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:12), and “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things written in the book of the law to do them” (Gal. 3:10). As no man renders this perfect obedience, the law condemns him. It pronounces on him the sentence of death. This is one way in which it kills.
In the second place, it produces the knowledge or consciousness of sin, and of course of guilt, that is, of just exposure to the wrath of God. Thus again it slays. And thirdly, by presenting the perfect standard of duty, which cannot be seen without awakening the sense of obligation to be conformed to it, while it imparts no disposition or power to obey, it exasperates the soul and thus again it brings forth fruit unto death. All these effects of the law are systematically presented by the apostle in Romans 6 & 7, and Galatians 3.
The second question is more difficult. Every reader of the New Testament must be struck with the fact that the apostle often speaks of the Mosaic law as he does of the moral law considered as a covenant of works; this is, presenting the promise of life on the condition of perfect obedience. He represents it saying, “Do this and live;” as requiring works, and not faith, as the condition of acceptance (Rom. 10:5-10; Gal. 3:10-12). He calls it a ministration of death and condemnation. He denies that it can give life (Gal. 3:21). He tells those who are of the law (that is, Judaizers) that they had fallen from grace; that is, had renounced the gratuitous method of salvation, and that Christ should profit them nothing (Gal. 5:2, 4).
In short, when he uses the word law, and says that by the law is the knowledge of sin, that it can only condemn, that by its works no flesh can be justified, he includes the Mosaic law; and in the epistle to the Galatians all these things are said with special reference to the law of Moses.
On the other hand, however, he teaches that the plan of salvation has been the same from the beginning; that Christ was the propitiation for the sins committed under the old covenant; that men were saved then as now by faith in Christ; that this mode of salvation was revealed to Abraham and understood by him, and taught by Moses and the prophets. This view is presented repeatedly in Paul’s epistles, and is argued out in due form in Rom. 3:21-31; Rom. 4; & Gal. 3.
To reconcile these apparently conflicting representations it must be remembered that the Mosaic economy was designed to accomplish different objects, and is therefore presented in Scripture under different aspects. What, therefore, is true of it under one aspect, is not true under another.
1. The law of Moses was, in the first place, a re-enactment of the covenant of works. A covenant is simply a promise suspended upon a condition. The covenant of works, therefore, is nothing more than the promise of life suspended on the condition of perfect obedience. The phrase is used as a concise and convenient expression of the eternal principles of justice on which God deals with rational creatures, and which underlie all dispensations, the Adamic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Christian. Our Lord said to the lawyer who asked what he should do to inherit eternal life, “‘What is written in the law? What do you read?’ And he, answering, said, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.’ And he said unto him, ‘You have answered rightly, do this and you shall live’” (Luke 10:26-28). This is the covenant of works. It is an immutable principle that where there is no sin there is no condemnation, and where there is sin there is death. This is all that those who reject the gospel have to fall back upon. It is this principle which is rendered so prominent in the Mosaic economy as to give it is character of law. Viewed under this aspect is is the ministration of condemnation and death.
2. The Mosaic economy was also a national covenant; that is, it presented national promises on the condition of national obedience. Under this aspect also it was purely legal.
3. But, as the gospel contains a renewed revelation of the law, so the law of Moses contained a revelation of the gospel. It presented in its priesthood and sacrifices, as types of the office and work of Christ, the gratuitous method of salvation through a Redeemer. This necessarily supposes that faith and not works was the condition of salvation. It was those who trusted, not those free from sin, who were saved. Thus Moses wrote of Christ (John 5:46); and thus the law and the prophets witnessed of a righteousness of faith (Rom. 3:21). When therefore the apostle spoke of the old covenant under its legal aspect, and especially when speaking to those who rejected the gospel and clung to the law of Moses as law, then he says, it kills, or is the ministration of condemnation. But when viewing it, and especially when speaking of those who viewed it as setting forth the great doctrine of redemption through the blood of Christ, the represented it as teaching his own doctrine.
The law, in every form, moral or Mosaic, natural or revealed, kills. In demanding works as the condition of salvation, it must condemn all sinners. But the gospel, whether as revealed in the promise to Adam after his fall, or in the promise to Abraham, or in the writings of Moses, or in its full clearness in the New Testament, gives life. As the old covenant revealed both the law and the gospel, it either killed or gave life, according to the light in which it was viewed. And therefore Paul sometimes says it does the one, and sometimes the other.
But the spirit gives life. The spirit, or the gospel, gives life in a sense correlating to that in which the letter (i.e., the law) kills.
1. By revealing a righteousness adequate to our justification, and thus delivering us from the sentence of death.
2. By producing the assurance of God’s love and the hope of his glory in the place of a dread of his wrath.
3. By becoming, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, an inward principle or power transforming us into the image of God; instead of a mere outward command.
After You Have Sinned… Remember This…
Adriel Sanchez is pastor of North Park Presbyterian Church, a congregation in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). In addition to his pastoral responsibilities, he also serves the broader church as a contributor on the White Horse Inn radio program. He and his wife Ysabel live in San Diego with their three children. Here is an article he wrote entitled, “4 Things To Remember After You Have Sinned” – original source here.
Have you ever felt like God turned his back on you because of your sin? Our failures, especially when they’re repeated, can leave us in a place of confusion. After we sin, we can begin to feel as if the light of God’s grace is no longer shining in our lives. Here are four things that God does when we have failed:
1. When we sin, God is advocating for us.
An advocate is someone who stands beside you and supports you. According to the apostle John, it’s precisely when we feel as though God has left us that he’s right there beside us!
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. (1 John 2:1)
When we sin, we have Christ in our corner as an advocate, pleading our case before the Father. This should give you comfort that God is for you and your repentance. If God heard the voice of Moses when he pleaded on behalf of the Israelites after they had committed idolatry by worshipping a golden calf (Exod. 32:11), will he not listen to the pleadings of his beloved Son on your behalf?
2. When we sin, God is praying for us.
The shame that accompanies sin sometimes makes it difficult for us to approach God in prayer. It feels as though “God has wrapped himself with a cloud so that no prayer can pass through” (Lam. 3:44). Take comfort in the fact that there is One who is holy, innocent, undefiled, set apart from sinners, and exalted above the heavens, who always lives to make intercession for you (see Heb. 7:24–25). Above the iron clouds that seem impenetrable, Jesus stands praying. Through him you can approach God in prayer even after you have failed (Heb. 4:16); and since he lives to make intercession for you, even when you are silent, Jesus speaks (Rom. 8:34). And not only Jesus, but God the Spirit also intercedes on your behalf:
Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. (Rom. 8:26–27)
3. When we sin, God disciplines us.
At first this can sound frightening, but it is meant to remind you of how much God loves you.
My son, do not despise the LORD’s discipline or be weary of his reproof, for the LORD reproves him whom he loves, as a father the son in whom he delights. (Prov. 3:11–12)
The sense of heaviness that often accompanies our sin may very well be God’s fatherly hand leading us to repentance. David, the king of Israel, wrote of his experience prior to confessing his sin.
For when I kept silent, my bones wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night your hand was heavy upon me; my strength was dried up as by the heat of summer. (Ps. 32:3–4; italics added)
When David came to the point of confession, however, he could proclaim, “You forgave the iniquity of my sin!” (v. 5). When God disciplines you, it is for your good, so that you might share in his holiness (Heb. 12:10) and not be condemned with the world (1 Cor. 11:32). Don’t let the discipline of God lead you to despair, but let it be another indication of his kindness over you.
4. When we sin, God offers to feed us.
One of the most heartbreaking stories in the Bible is the story of when Peter denied Jesus. Jesus had never turned his back on Peter, but during Jesus’ hour of greatest need, Peter abandoned him. When a crowd confronted Peter about whether he knew Jesus, “[Peter] began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, ‘I do not know the man.’” Peter then remembered that Jesus had foretold his sin, and began to sob (see Matt. 26:74–75). While Jesus was dying, Peter hid in cowardice.
Maybe you have shared in those tears and experienced the pain of betraying the Lord who has never done you wrong. It’s in this moment that we expect Jesus to say, “I’ve had enough of you!” But what did Jesus say to Peter and the rest of the disciples who had deserted him after his resurrection? “Come and have breakfast” (John 21:12). The apostle John tells us that Jesus cooked a meal for his fickle followers and invited them to eat with him. After you have sinned, Jesus offers to feed you, too. When the church gathers to take communion, Jesus is setting a table for you to come and be nourished by Him once again—a table where you can experience his love and forgiveness anew.
If you have been tempted to believe that God is done with you because of your failures, consider your advocate, Jesus, who is praying for you and guides you with his pierced hands. Hear Jesus inviting you to breakfast: “Come, and eat!” The food he gives is not bacon and eggs but body and blood; his body and blood, given to nourish you even after you fall.
May the knowledge that God is still for you give you the grace to get up and give thanks, even when you feel weighed down by your sin.
Evidences of a Young Earth
Original source here including the links provided in the article)
Without millions and billions of years, evolutionary history completely falls apart. Here are just a few of many credible evidences from various branches of science that tell of a world much younger than evolutionists claim.
Evidence 1 Geology: Radiocarbon in Diamonds
Far from proving evolution, carbon-14 dating actually provides some of the strongest evidence for creation and a young earth. Radiocarbon (carbon-14) cannot remain naturally in substances for millions of years because it decays relatively rapidly. For this reason, it can only be used to obtain “ages” in the range of tens of thousands of years.
Scientists from the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) project examined diamonds that evolutionists consider to be 1–2 billion years old and related to the earth’s early history. Diamonds are the hardest known substance and extremely resistant to contamination through chemical exchange.
Yet the RATE scientists discovered significant detectable levels of radiocarbon in these diamonds, dating them at around 55,000 years—a far cry from the evolutionary billions!
For more information, see Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed. To learn more about diamonds and their formation, read this article by Dr. Andrew Snelling.
Evidence 2 Astronomy: Recession of the Moon
The gravitational pull of the moon creates a “tidal bulge” on earth that causes the moon to spiral outwards very slowly. Because of this effect, the moon would have been closer to the earth in the past. Based on gravitational forces and the current rate of recession, we can calculate how much the moon has moved away over time.
If the earth is only 6,000 years old, there’s no problem, because in that time the moon would have only moved about 800 feet (250 m). But most astronomy books teach that the moon is over four billion years old, which poses a major dilemma—less than 1.5 billion years ago the moon would have been touching the earth!
For more information, see Lunar Recession (based on this article) as well as The Age of the Universe, Part 2. We also recommend Video on Demand: Our Created Moon.
Evidence 3 Geology: Earth’s Decaying Magnetic Field
Like other planets, the earth has a magnetic field that is decaying quite rapidly. We are now able to measure the rate at which the magnetic energy is being depleted and develop models to explain the data.
Secular scientists invented a “dynamo model” of the earth’s core to explain how the field could have lasted over such a long period of time, but this model fails to adequately explain the data for the rapid decay and the rapid reversals that it has undergone in the past. (It also cannot account for the magnetic fields of other planets, such as Neptune and Mercury.)
However, the creationist model (based on the Genesis Flood) effectively and simply explains the data in regard to the earth’s magnetic field, providing striking evidence that the earth is only thousands of years old—and not billions.
For more information, see The Earth’s Magnetic Field and the Age of the Earth and section two of The Age of the Universe, Part 2.
Evidence 4 Biology: Dinosaur Soft Tissue
In recent years, there have been many findings of “wondrously preserved” biological materials in supposedly ancient rock layers and fossils. One such discovery that has left evolutionists scrambling is a fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex femur with flexible connective tissue, branching blood vessels, and even intact cells!
According to evolutionists, these dinosaur tissues are more than 65 million years old, but laboratory studies have shown that there is no known way—and likely none possible—for biological material to last more than thousands of years.
Could it be that evolutionists are completely wrong about how recently these dinosaurs lived?
To learn more, see “Ostrich-Osaurus” Discovery? and The Scrambling Continues. We also recommend the article Fossilized Biomaterials Must Be Young by Brian Thomas of ICR.
Evidence 5 Anthropology: Human Population Growth
It’s amazing what basic mathematics can show us about the age of the earth. We can calculate the years of human existence with the population doubling every 150 years (a very conservative figure) to get an estimate of what the world’s population should be after any given period of time.
A biblical age of the earth (about 6,000 years) is consistent with the numbers yielded by such a calculation. In contrast, even a conservative evolutionary age of 50,000 years comes out to a staggering, impossibly high figure of 10 to the 99th power—greater than the number of atoms in the universe!
Clearly, the claim that humans have inhabited the earth for tens of thousands of years is absurd!
For a better look at these calculations, see Billions of People in Thousands of Years?
Evidence 6 Geology: Tightly Folded Rock Strata
When solid rock is bent, it normally cracks and breaks. Rock can only bend without fracturing when it is softened by extreme heating (which causes re-crystalization) or when the sediments have not yet fully hardened.
There are numerous locations around the world (including the famous Grand Canyon) where we observe massive sections of strata that have been tightly folded, without evidence of the sediments being heated.
This is a major problem for evolutionists who believe these rock layers were laid down gradually over vast eons of time, forming the geologic record. However, it makes perfect sense to creationists who believe these layers were formed rapidly in the global, catastrophic Flood described in Genesis.
To find out more, see Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured.
Does the age of the earth really matter?
While each of these evidences reveals reasons why the earth cannot be billions of years old, the real issue is not the age of the earth. Instead, the real issue is authority. God’s infallible Word must be our ultimate authority, not the unstable foundation of human reasoning. Are we trying to fit our interpretations of the world (e.g., evolution) into Scripture, or will we simply let God speak for Himself through His Word?
If we can’t trust the first chapters of Genesis, why should we believe when Scripture says that faith in Jesus Christ as the only way of salvation? (Romans 10:9; Acts 4:12; John 14:6)
But when we take Scripture as written, it’s clear that the earth can’t be more than a few thousand years old—and from a biblical worldview, the scientific evidence agrees!