Exegeting 2 Peter 3:9

Posted on by

2 Peter 3:9, without doubt, is the single most popular verse used by Arminians/synergists to dismiss the biblical doctrine of election, bar none. The meaning of the verse is simply assumed, and because of this, no time is taken to study it, which is the very hallmark of tradition. I have to admit that I made this exact assumption for the first couple of decades of my Christian life, even as a pastor. I was a synergist and the synergistic interpretation seemed obviously correct to me. Because of this, I saw no need to study the text in order to examine my traditions. In this regard, it’s been well said, “those most enslaved to tradition are those who think they do not have any.”

The Arminian/Synergist Interpretation

Roger E. Olson (PhD, Rice University) is professor of theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University. He self identifies as an Arminian. Insisting that 1 Timothy 2:3-4 teaches much the same truth as 2 Peter 3:9, Olson writes these words,

“Above all Arminians insist that God is a good and loving God, who truly desires the salvation of all people. Note 1 Timothy 2:3–4: “This is good, and pleases God our savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth”; and 2 Peter 3:9: “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead, he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” Arminians regard these and similar passages of Scripture as clearly and unequivocally pointing to God’s universal desire for salvation of every person.” 1

But is this interpretation correct? To answer this question, let us begin by reading the verse in its context, beginning with the first portion of the chapter:

2 Peter 3:1-9 – “This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, ‘Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.’ For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.”

Exegesis of the Text

The first thing we notice is that the subject of the passage is not salvation but the second coming of Christ. Peter is explaining the reason for the delay in Christ’s second coming. He is still coming and will come unexpectedly, like a thief in the night. (v. 10) The second thing to notice is that the verse in question (v.9) speaks of the wishing or willing of God (depending on the translation utilized). “God is not willing” for something to happen.

Theologians have long recognized that there are three ways in which the will of God is spoken of in Scripture.

There is what is called the Sovereign Decretive Will, sometimes referred to as the Sovereign efficacious will. This refers to the will by which God brings to pass whatsoever He decrees. This is something that always happens. Nothing can thwart this will (Isa 46:9-11). This will is also known as the secret will of God because it is hidden to us until it comes to pass in the course of time.

Secondly, there is the Preceptive Will of God. This is God’s will revealed in His law, commandments or precepts. As the course of human history reveals, people have the power to break these commandments and do so every day. It is important to state that although men have the power to break these precepts, they do not have the right to do so. His creatures are under obligation to obey all His commandments and will face His judgment for not doing so.

Thirdly, we have God’s Will of Disposition. Dr. R. C. Sproul states, “This will describes God’s attitude. It defines what is pleasing to Him. For example, God takes no delight in the death of the wicked, yet He most surely wills or decrees the death of the wicked. God’s ultimate delight is in His own holiness and righteousness. When He judges the world, He delights in the vindication of His own righteousness and justice, yet He is not gleeful in a vindictive sense toward those who receive His judgment. God is pleased when we find our pleasure in obedience. He is sorely displeased when we are disobedient.”2

There are many in the Reformed community who look at 2 Peter 3:9 and feel that what we have here is God expressing His will of disposition. They believe the text to be saying that God is not wishing or desiring to see any human being perish (in one sense), even though that is exactly what will happen if a person does not come to repentance. The fact that people perish is not something that makes God happy. And yet, to uphold His holiness and justice, He must punish rebellious sinners by sending them to an eternity in hell. John Frame expresses this view as he writes, “God’s will is sometimes thwarted because he wills it to be, because he has given one of his desires precedence over another.” And again, “God does not intend to bring about everything he values, but he never fails to bring about what he intends.”3

A lot could be said for this view of the text and I have many Reformed friends who hold to it. It does seem to solve many problems. However, I am convinced of a different view.

What follows is a lengthy quote by Dr. R.C. Sproul. He writes, “Let us apply these three possible definitions to the passage in 2 Peter. If we take the blanket statement, ‘God is not willing that any should perish,’ and apply the sovereign efficacious will to it, the conclusion is obvious. No one will perish. If God sovereignly decrees that no one should perish, and God is God, then certainly no one will ever perish. This would be a proof text not for Arminianism but for universalism. The text would then prove too much for Arminians.

Suppose we apply the definition of the preceptive will of God to this passage? Then the passage would mean that God does not allow anyone to perish. That is, he forbids the perishing of people. It is against his law. If people then went ahead and perished, God would have to punish them for perishing. His punishment for perishing would be more perishing. But how does one engage in more perishing? This definition will not work in this passage. It makes no sense.

The third alternative is that God takes no delight in the perishing of people. This squares with what the Bible says elsewhere about God’s disposition toward the lost. This definition could fit this passage. Peter may be saying here that God takes no delight in the perishing of anyone.

Though the third definition is possible and attractive to use in resolving this passage with what the Bible teaches about predestination, there is yet another factor to be considered. The text says more than simply that God is not willing that any perish. The whole clause is important: “but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.”4

I find Dr. Sproul’s logic here convincing. So let’s ask a further question of the text, namely, Who are the “all” and who are the “us”? Are these references to all people everywhere on planet earth?

When we follow the pronouns of the passage the answer becomes immediately apparent. The people Peter is addressing are clearly identified. He speaks of the mockers as “they”, but everywhere else he speaks to his audience as “you” and the “beloved.” This is vitally important.

But surely “all” means “all,” right? Well usually, yes, but not always. This has to be determined by the context in which the words are found. When a school teacher is in a classroom and is about to start the class and asks the students, “Are we all here?”, he is not asking if everyone on planet Earth is in the classroom. Because of the context in which the question is framed, we understand that he is referring to all within a certain class or type; in this case, all the students in the class. To say that he is referring to all people on planet earth would be to grossly misinterpret the intended meaning of his question. So, the question in 2 Peter 3:9 is whether “all” refers to all human beings without exception, or whether it refers to everyone within a certain group. The context of 2 Peter 3:9 indicates that Peter is writing to a specific group of people and not to all of mankind. The audience is confirmed when Peter writes, “This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved…” (2 Peter 3:1)

According to the first chapter in this epistle, this group had “received a faith of the same kind as ours” by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:1, NASB).

Can we be even more specific about who this group is? Indeed, yes, because if this is the second letter addressed to them, the first letter makes it clear who he is writing to. 1 Peter 1:1 begins this way, “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect…”

As we read through the passage in 2 Peter 3, there is nothing that would indicate that the audience changes in any way. The same group is being addressed throughout. So Peter is writing to the elect in 2 Peter 3:8, 9 saying “But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” (emphasis mine)

I would agree with Dr. Sproul (and other scholars) who believe that the will of God spoken of here is not God’s will of disposition but His Sovereign decretive will. God is not willing that any should perish. He will not allow it to happen. Allowing for this premise then, if the “any” or “all” here refers to everyone in human history, the verse would prove universalism rather than Christianity. Universalism is the false doctrine that teaches that everyone will in the end be saved, with no one going to hell.

As has been established, if God is not willing (in His decretive Sovereign will) that any person perish; then what? No one would ever perish! Yet, in context, as Dr. James White asserts, “Peter limits his use of ‘all’ and ‘any’ to a specific audience, ‘you.’”5 In other words, the “any” that God wills not to perish is limited to the same group he is writing to, the elect; and the “all” that are to come to repentance is the very same group.

This interpretation makes total sense of the passage. Christ’s second coming has been delayed so that all the elect can be gathered in. The elect are not justified by election, but by putting their faith in Christ. If a person is to be saved they must come to Christ in repentance and faith. The doctrine of Sovereign Election simply explains who will do so. The elect will. Jesus assured us of this when He said, “All that the Father gives to me will come to me” (John 6:37) and is confirmed by the testimony of Luke in Acts 13:48 when he observed that “… all who were appointed to eternal life believed.” All who had the appointment, made the appointment.

Conclusion

2 Peter Chapter 3 teaches us that the reason Christ has not yet returned is because there are more of His elect to come into the fold. That is why He did not return yesterday. At this point in time, not all of the elect have come to repentance and faith. Therefore, Christ has not yet returned to the Earth in power and glory. Christ’s second coming may seem to be delayed but God is being very longsuffering toward us (you, beloved) not willing that any should perish but that all come to repentance. Rather than denying election, 2 Peter 3:9, understood in its biblical context, is one of the strongest verses in favor of it. The Lord Jesus will return, but only after all His elect, beloved people have come to repentance.

Bibliography

  1. Roger E. Olson, Against Calvinism electronic [Kindle] edition, p. 68
  2. R. C. Sproul Essential Truths of the Christian Faith Tyndale Elevate; Illustrated edition (1998)
  3. John M. Frame, No Other God: A Response to Open Theism (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterean & Reformed, 2001), 113
  4. James White, The Potter’s Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and the Rebuttal of Norman Geisler’s Chosen But Free, Calvary Press; Revised edition (May 15, 2000)
  5. R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God, Tyndale Elevate (April 6, 2021)

Rome’s ‘Gospel’ Cannot Save

Posted on by

Transcript from a Conference Question and Answer Session with Dr. R. C. Sproul – Pittsburgh, 2000

Questioner to Dr. R. C. Sproul: “How do you feel about the Vatican and its doctrine? Can you believe in this and still be saved?”

R.C. Sproul: “If they are asking, ‘Can you be a member of the Roman Catholic Church and be saved?’ I would say, ‘Without question, Yes!’ If you understand fully the doctrines of the Vatican and embrace them, then I would say, ‘No, you can’t.’

That’s because to embrace the teaching of Rome, clearly understood, you would have to repudiate the gospel – particularly the doctrine of justification by faith alone, which contrary to the press releases of the accord with the Lutherans and all of that, the Roman Catholic Church has not changed its teaching from the Council of Trent one bit. The Council of Trent (the middle of the 16th Century) was where they set forth their condemnation of the Reformation view of justification and set forth the expression of their own doctrine of justification.

Questioner: “Which is?”

R.C. Sproul: “Well, its complicated, but real quickly, the doctrine of justification in Rome involves several elements. It begins with baptism (sacramentally) where in the sacrament of baptism, justifying grace is infused into the soul of the recipient (its called the righteousness of Christ). It is infused ex opere operato (through the working of the sacrament). That infusion of grace places the infant in a state of grace and two things have to happen: one, they must cooperate with that grace and assent to that grace to be justified, (‘coopere et assentara’ are the exact words of Trent) to such a point that righteousness inheres in the soul for them to be saved. Now as long as righteousness inheres in the soul, you are in a state of justification (you are in a state of grace) until or unless you commit mortal sin. Mortal sin is called mortal sin because it kills the grace of justification in your soul. Now here’s also what is spelled out at Trent – you can commit mortal sin while you still have authentic faith – so you can have faith and not have justification – so faith alone will never suffice.

Faith is determined at Trent to be the fundamentum (the foundation), the initium (the initiation), and the rodex (the root of justification) – so you’ve got to have faith, but faith alone will not do it.

Now if you commit mortal sin, you don’t get re-baptized, even though you have lost the grace of justification, you go to the second plank of justification which is the sacrament of penance, defined by Trent as the sacrament for those who have made shipwreck of their souls. In the sacrament of penance you have to make confession, you have to get priestly absolution, and then you have to do your works of satisfaction which are necessary to gain meritum de congruo (or congruous merit) – merit that does not oblige God to redeem you but makes it fitting for God to restore you to a state of grace. And as long as you stay then in that state of grace and you have inherent righteousness (righteousness that is in you) then you will be saved. But if you die with any impurity on your soul, you go to purgatory (the purging place) until the impurity is removed.

The Protestant and I believe biblical view is that the moment you put your faith and trust in Jesus Christ, all that He is and all that He has – becomes yours in the sight of God. And that the righteousness by which we are justified is not our inherent righteousness but strictly and solely the righteousness that Luther said is extra nos (outside of us) a iustisium alienum (an alien righteousness), somebody else’s righteousness. That’s the gospel – that what saves me is not my inherent righteousness but the righteousness of Christ that was performed in His life. Not in my life, in His life. And the moment I put my faith and trust in Him, I am redeemed forever.

I don’t have to worry about purgatory, I don’t have to worry about works of congruous merit, I don’t have to worry about inherent righteousness – I mean God is going to make me inherently righteous in heaven, but my justification does not rely upon that. It is not the gospel to go tell people, here, the grace of God will help you become inherently righteous, why don’t you come and join our church and we will give you the sacrament of grace to help you. That’s not the gospel.”

What is a Reformed Baptist Church?

Posted on by

The following article is written by a pastor friend of mine, Travis Peterson. He is a remarkable man in that he serves his flock Providence Reformed Church in Las Vegas even as he is legally blind. He is a very gifted teacher of God’s word and this article is a helpful explanation regarding the question, ‘What is a Reformed Baptist Church?’

Pastor Travis writes:

No matter what kind of church one claims to belong to, that label will carry with it definitions and distinctions which make one church different from another. As taxonomic classifications identify organisms from kingdom down to species, certain distinctions help us to know what a church is when we see what they claim to be.

When one sees the word “reformed” in a church’s name or identity, a few possible meanings may be present. For example, a church may suggest that being reformed is particularly tied to a Presbyterian denomination or confession, denying that any can be reformed who are not part of that group. More loosely, another may use the word reformed simply to mean Calvinistic as concerns the church’s beliefs relating to salvation. Still others fall somewhere in the middle, believing that a reformed church is one which has some particular distinctives, but which is not necessarily Presbyterian—Reformed Baptists for example.

Because Reformed Baptist is the context of Providence Reformed Church where I serve, and because many wrestle with exactly how to explain what a Reformed Baptist is, I thought it might be useful to pull together a couple of threads of thought and share them here. This post will include a summary of several key ideas which would take you a while to explain to someone else. Next week, I hope to lay out some strategies for explaining Reformed Baptist to others in a short and simple way. I am not here claiming to be the authority over how the phrase is used, but am only hoping to help explain what we mean in our church when we say “Reformed Baptist.” 

Reformed Baptist churches are:1

  • Christian
  • Protestant
  • Reformed
  • Baptist

Christian – Christian churches embrace the true message of the Bible and the gospel of Jesus Christ. The basic beliefs of Christians are often summarized in classic creeds such as the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the Chalcedonian Definition. These statements focus particularly on the identity of the one true God existing as trinity and the person of Jesus as truly God and truly man. This distinction separates Christianity from other world religions and cults which deny the trinity, the deity and humanity of Christ, or the basic gospel. 

Protestant – A Protestant church, unlike the Roman Catholic Church, embraces the five Solas of the Reformation. These churches believe that the Scripture alone is the final and highest authority for the church on earth. They teach that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, and to the glory of God alone. Protestants recovered these biblical doctrines during the era known as the Protestant Reformation.

Reformed – A subset of Protestant churches, Reformed churches embrace the beliefs of key doctrinal confessions such as the Belgic, Westminster, or Second London confessions. Much of what is recovered in these confessions beyond the basic faith of the classic creeds has to do with the authority of Scripture, the structure of the church, and the doctrine of salvation including election. Reformed churches are distinct from other Protestant churches which do not embrace these confessions and doctrines.

Baptist – A Baptist church is a Protestant church that expressly declares that only those who are saved by Jesus are part of the true church. Baptists believe that those who are saved obey Christ through the ordinance of believer’s baptism as a public declaration of their faith. Baptists value the autonomy of local congregations and the congregational voice in church government. These beliefs distinguish Baptist churches from our Presbyterian brothers.2

Other theological and practical particulars are often seen as identifying Reformed Baptists as different from non-Reformed Baptists. One author suggests the following five distinctives:3

  • The Regulative Principle of Worship
  • Covenant Theology
  • Calvinism
  • The Law of God
  • Confessional

The Regulative Principle of Worship – This teaching limits the acts of a church in worship to those which God commanded in Scripture. This distinguishes Reformed Baptist churches from others which practice the normative principle of worship, the belief that all things are permissible in worship so long as they are not forbidden in Scripture.

Covenant Theology – This doctrine accepts the covenant of redemption, covenant of works, and covenant of grace. The covenant of redemption is the plan among the persons of the trinity to rescue a people for the glory of God. The covenant of works is the covenant Adam failed to keep when he disobeyed God in the garden and brought condemnation on humanity resulting in the truth that no human being can now earn his or her way to God through good works. The covenant of Grace is the free gift of salvation by grace through faith in Christ who lived perfection and died as a sacrifice to pay for the sins of God’s people. Believers in covenant theology understand that Christ is the fulfillment of God’s promises from the Old Testament and that the Bible is a unified account of God’s accomplishment of his plan of salvation.  Covenant theologians, because of these beliefs, are distinct from dispensationalists. 

Calvinism – Calvinists believe in the sovereignty of God in the salvation of all who are saved. Calvinism embraces sovereign election and denies that people come to Christ without God first moving them to do so. 

The Law of God – A reformed understanding of God’s law includes the belief that the moral law of God is summarized in the Ten Commandments and that no one will fully understand the gospel apart from the law of God. Reformed Baptists will often see the law of God as useful to show a person their need for salvation, to help societies to restrain evil and destructive behavior, and to help the saved to understand the character of God and what pleases him. 

Confessional – Reformed Baptists often subscribe to the Second London Baptist Confession (written in 1677, published in 1689). This is not to say that there may not be small points that require further explanation or with which the church may quibble. Yet the Reformed Baptist Church will declare the confession to be a true summary of the church’s beliefs.

While different individuals or churches may disagree with one or more of the points above, they are a fair summary of what is broadly assumed to be a Reformed Baptist Church.

Next week, we will look at how to explain what a Reformed Baptist is in a short and simple way.

1 The 1st 3 items of this list are found in Daniel Hyde, Welcome to a Reformed Church (Sanford, FL: Ligonier Ministries, 2010), Introduction.

2 Baptist began to distinguish themselves during the period of the English Reformation along with Congregationalists. Such Baptists are not linked with the anabaptist movement.

3 This list comes from Tom Hicks, “What is a Reformed Baptist?” (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Ministries) [article on-line]; accessed 15 July 2023; available from  https://founders.org/articles/what-is-a-reformed-baptist/; Internet.

Could God Have Used Evolution?

Posted on by

Ken Ham in a facebook post October 27, 2023 writes:

Could God have used evolution? Well, first of all, it’s not a matter of what God could have done but what he said he did. Secondly, if a Christian truly understands evolution and its processes of death, disease, and violence over millions of years, and understands the attributes of a holy God, then, no—God couldn’t have used evolution to create life. To do so would be against his own character.

Many Christians today claim that millions of years of earth history fit with the Bible and that God could have used evolutionary processes to create. This idea is not a recent invention. For over 200 years, many theologians have attempted such harmonizations in response to the work of people like Charles Darwin and Scottish geologist Charles Lyell before him, who helped popularize the idea of millions of years of earth history and slow geological processes.

When we consider the possibility that God used evolutionary processes to create over millions of years, we are faced with serious consequences: the Word of God is no longer authoritative, and the character of our loving God is questioned.

Already in Darwin’s day, one of the leading evolutionists saw the compromise involved in claiming that God used evolution, and his insightful comments are worth reading again. Once you accept evolution and its implications about history, then man becomes free to pick and choose which parts of the Bible he wants to accept.

The leading humanist of Darwin’s day, Thomas Huxley (1825–1895), eloquently pointed out the inconsistencies of reinterpreting Scripture to fit with popular scientific thinking. Huxley, an ardent evolutionary humanist, was known as “Darwin’s bulldog,” as he did more to popularize Darwin’s ideas than Darwin himself. Huxley understood Christianity much more clearly than did compromising theologians who tried to add evolution and millions of years to the Bible. He used their compromise against them to help his cause in undermining Christianity.

In his essay “Lights of the Church and Science,” Huxley stated,

“I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how anyone, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history…what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?”

Huxley made the point that if we are to believe the New Testament doctrines, we must believe the historical account of Genesis as historical truth.

Huxley was definitely out to destroy the truth of the biblical record. When people rejected the Bible, he was happy. But when they tried to harmonize evolutionary ideas with the Bible and reinterpret it, he vigorously attacked this position. He stated:

“I confess I soon lose my way when I try to follow those who walk delicately among ‘types’ and allegories. A certain passion for clearness forces me to ask, bluntly, whether the writer means to say that Jesus did not believe the stories in question or that he did? When Jesus spoke, as a matter of fact, that ‘the Flood came and destroyed them all,’ did he believe that the Deluge really took place, or not? It seems to me that, as the narrative mentions Noah’s wife, and his sons’ wives, there is good scriptural warranty for the statement that the antediluvians married and were given in marriage: and I should have thought that their eating and drinking might be assumed by the firmest believer in the literal truth of the story. Moreover, I venture to ask what sort of value, as an illustration of God’s methods of dealing with sin, has an account of an event that never happened? If no Flood swept the careless people away, how is the warning of more worth than the cry of ‘Wolf’ when there is no wolf?“

Huxley also quoted 1 Corinthians 15:21–22: “For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.”

Huxley continued, “If Adam may be held to be no more real a personage than Prometheus, and if the story of the Fall is merely an instructive ‘type,’ comparable to the profound Promethean mythos, what value has Paul’s dialectic?

Thus, concerning those who accepted the New Testament doctrines that the Apostle Paul and Christ teach but rejected Genesis as literal history, Huxley claimed “the melancholy fact remains, that the position they have taken up is hopelessly untenable.”

He was adamant that science (by which he meant evolutionary, long-age ideas about the past) had proven that one cannot intelligently accept the Genesis account of creation and the flood as historical truth. He further pointed out that various doctrines in the New Testament are dependent on the truth of these events, such as Paul’s teaching on the doctrine of sin, Christ’s teaching on the doctrine of marriage, and the warning of future judgment. Huxley mocked those who try to harmonize evolution and millions of years with the Bible, because it requires them to give up a historical Genesis while still trying to hold to the doctrines of the New Testament.

The book of Genesis teaches that death is the result of Adam’s sin (Genesis 3:19; Romans 5:12, 8:18–22) and that all of God’s creation was “very good” upon its completion (Genesis 1:31). All animals and humans were originally vegetarian (Genesis 1:29–30). But if we compromise on the history of Genesis by adding millions of years, we must believe that death and disease were part of the world before Adam sinned. You see, the (alleged) millions of years of earth history in the fossil record shows evidence of animals eating each other, diseases like cancer in their bones, violence, plants with thorns, and so on. All of this supposedly took place before man appears on the scene, and thus before sin (and its curse of death, disease, thorns, carnivory, and so on) entered the world.

Christians who believe in an old earth (billions of years) need to come to grips with the real nature of the god of an old earth—it is not the loving God of the Bible. Even many conservative, evangelical Christian leaders accept and actively promote a belief in millions and billions of years for the age of rocks. How could a God of love allow such horrible processes as disease, suffering, and death for millions of years as part of his “very good” creation?

The god of an old earth cannot therefore be the God of the Bible who is able to save us from sin and death. Thus, when Christians compromise with the millions of years attributed by many scientists to the fossil record, they are, in that sense, seemingly worshipping a different god—the cruel god of an old earth.

People must remember that God created a perfect world; so when they look at this present world, they are not looking at the nature of God but at the results of our sin.

The God of the Bible, the God of mercy, grace, and love, sent his one and only Son to become a man (but God nonetheless), to become our sin bearer so that we could be saved from sin and eternal separation from God. As 2 Corinthians 5:21 says, “For He has made Him who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”

There’s no doubt—the god of an old earth destroys the gospel.

Now it is true that rejection of six literal days doesn’t ultimately affect one’s salvation, if one is truly born again. However, we need to stand back and look at the big picture.

In many nations, the Word of God was once widely respected and taken seriously. But once the door of compromise is unlocked, once Christian leaders concede that we shouldn’t interpret the Bible as written in Genesis, why should the world take heed of God’s Word in any area? Because the church has told the world that one can use man’s interpretation of the world, such as billions of years, to reinterpret the Bible, this Book is seen as an outdated, scientifically incorrect holy book not intended to be believed as written.

As each subsequent generation has pushed this door of compromise open farther and farther, they are increasingly not accepting the morality or salvation of the Bible either. After all, if the history in Genesis is not correct, how can one be sure the rest is correct? Jesus said, “If I have told you earthly things, and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you of heavenly things?” (John 3:12).

The battle is not one of young earth vs. old earth, or billions of years vs. six days, or creation vs. evolution—the real battle is the authority of the Word of God vs. man’s fallible opinions. Is God’s Word the authority, or is man’s word the authority?

So, couldn’t God have used evolution to create? The answer is no. A belief in millions of years of evolution not only contradicts the clear teaching of Genesis and the rest of Scripture but also impugns the character of God. He told us in the book of Genesis that he created the whole universe and everything in it in six days by his word: “Then God said . . .” His Word is the evidence of how and when God created, and his Word is incredibly clear.