A Systematic Theology for the 21st Century

Part 06 Anthropology - The Doctrine of Man

by Dr. Edward Rice

Download pdf at www.GSBaptistChurch.com/theology

Part 06 Anthropology

Table of Contents

Part 06 Anthropology 1

Chapter 1 – Introduction 2

Chapter 2 – Cambron's Chap IV Anthropology -The Doctrine of Man 5

I. Man In His State of Integrity 6

II. Man In His State of Sin 16

III. Man In His State of Grace 21

Chapter 3 – A Six Day Creation 28

Six Days With No Evolution 31

Six Days With No Gap 34

Six Days, No Gap, No Half-breed Angels But a Depraved Humanity 43

Chapter 4 – The Depravity of Man 46

Chapter 5 – The Seven Dispensations for Mankind 54

The First Dispensation – Innocence 61

The Second Dispensation – Conscience 61

The Third Dispensation – Government 62

The Fourth Dispensation – Promise 63

The Fifth Dispensation – Law 63

The Sixth Dispensation – Grace and Truth 65

The Seventh Dispensation – The Kingdom 66

Chapter 6 – Critique of Other Systematic Theology – Anthropologies 68

Critique of Chafer's Anthropology 68

Critique of Chafers Material/Immaterial Part of Man 74

Critique of Chafer's State of Innocence and Fall 75

A Critique of Augustus H. Strong's 1907 Systematic Theology – Anthropology 77

A Critique of Charles Hodge's 1871 Systematic Theology – Anthropology 80

A Critique of Norman L. Geisler's 2002 Systematic Theology – Anthropology 80

Chapter 7 – Anthropology Conclusion 81

Bibliography for Anthropology 83

Chapter 1 – Introduction

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Genesis 1:26-271

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. Genesis 2:7-8

Having thoroughly considered the nature of God, we now consider the nature of man. Anthropology is the doctrine of man, or a discourse on human nature2, specifically taken from the Greek “Anthropos,” for man, and “ology3 for a discourse of/on. (It has been well stated previous that “ology” is so much bigger than study, discourse, or doctrine of, that it might need its own consideration whenever it is used.) In a Biblical systematic theology the discourse will focus on everything God has revealed to us about man in his inerrant, infallible, verbally inspired holy Scriptures. By definition that is adequate coverage of all that needs to be considered about man. The Father of Systematic Theologies, Charles Hodge (1797-1878) develops an idea that God's thorough coverage of anthropology is the complete truth as follows:

All that the Scriptures teach concerning the external world accords with the facts of experience. They do not teach that the earth is a plane; that it is stationary in space; that the sun revolves around it. On the other hand, they do teach that God made all plants and animals, each after its own kind; and, accordingly, all experience shows that species are immutable. All the anthropological doctrines of the Bible agree with what we know of man from consciousness and observation. The Bible teaches that God made of one blood all nations which dwell on the face of the earth. We accordingly find that all the varieties of our race have the same anatomical structure; the same physical nature; the same rational and moral faculties. The Bible teaches that man is a free, accountable agent; that all men are sinners; that all need redemption, and that no man can redeem himself or find a ransom for his brother. With these teachings the consciousness of all men agrees. All that the Scriptures reveal concerning the nature and attributes of God corresponds with our religious nature, satisfying, elevating, and sanctifying all our powers and meeting all our necessities. If the contents of the Bible did not correspond with the truths which God has revealed in his external works and the constitution of our nature, it could not be received as coming from Him, for God cannot contradict himself. Nothing, therefore, can be more derogatory to the Bible than the assertion that its doctrines are contrary to reason.4

Charles Hodge was a genius with great depth, but in his anthropology section he fails to stand by his own assertion here that God's Word can be our sole authority for what we understand about man. Instead he spends all his effort defying what we do not believe and then even defending the Roman philosophical teachings of dualism against the Bible's endorsement of man's trichotomy, i.e. body, soul, and spirit. Certainly there are many things about humans that can be explored and studied outside of the Bible, just as there are things to be learned about earth's orbit around the sun in a galaxy called the Milky Way. The Bible does not teach us that the kidneys filter our blood and send chemical signals to our brain to regulate our blood pressure, nor that a poorly operating kidney increases our uric acid and causes gout. Those truth are discovered outside the Bible. But in a truly Biblical systematic theology our focus in an anthropology section need only be what God has revealed about man in his inerrant, infallible, verbally inspired Word. The very best basis of anthropology then comes first from consideration of the very best Biblical Doctrine book.

There is no truer, or more thorough, published, Baptist, and Biblical doctrine than that of Dr. Mark G. Cambron.5 His teachings on Bible Doctrine at Tennessee Temple Bible School thoroughly lay the foundation for this present work of systematic theology. His book, Bible Doctrines6 will, with the permission of the Cambron Institute7, be given in block quotes throughout this effort. The book is readily available through http://www.thecambroninstitute.org, and it forms the foundation for this systematic theology.8

Believing in the verbal inspiration of the Holy Scriptures and believing that every single word is directly chosen by God, it is prudent here to preserve and defend the doctrines extracted from Scripture and presented by Dr. Cambron. Below, in a block quote of his book, is his extensive analysis of Anthropology: [block quote of Dr. Cambron's Bible Doctrines page 116-134 (Zondervan 155-174)]

Chapter 2 – Cambron's Chap IV Anthropology -The Doctrine of Man

Chapter 4

Anthropology - The Doctrine of Man


ANTHROPOLOGY (The Doctrine of Man)




I. Man in His State of Integrity.

A. His Origin.

B. His Nature.

C. His Constitution.

D. His Condition.

E. His Headship.

II. Man in His State of Sin.

A. The Fall of Man.

B. The Fallen Sons of Adam.

III. Man in His State of Grace.

A. His Standing.

B. His State.

C. His Two Natures.


Chapter IV


Anthropology comes from the Greek word “anthropos,” meaning “man.” Anthropology is the doctrine of man. There are many different definitions of man, some comical, some tragic. In this study of anthropology we shall go to the true source — the Scriptures. Man has always wanted to know who he is, where he came from, and where he is going. God’s Holy Word gives the only complete account.

I. Man In His State of Integrity

By this we mean man in his original state of purity, his uprightness.

A. His Origin.

1. Negative.

a. Not by Abiogenesis or Spontaneous Generation. This theory holds to the belief that there was no creator of man, but that man simply came into being without a cause and began to exist, fulfilling the nursery rhyme, which reads:

Where did you come from, Baby dear?

Out of the nowhere, into here!

This argument needs no answer, but in order to forestall criticism, we simply state that if such a thing as abiogenesis were possible, there would be no power to keep it from happening again. There is no record of a second occurrence, and, of course, it never happened in the first place.

b. Not by Evolution or Natural Developments. A short definition of evolution is: “That process by which, through some kind of aggregation of matter through many ages and species, by chance or by law, man appears.” This concept has held sway for many years, but its adherents are on the decline. Modern science, such as anthropology, is refuting all of its claims. The Bible declares that man is a separate creation of God, and that the animals were created at a different time, completely apart from man. Evolution teaches that man and animals have a common origin, which branched out into the different species. In refuting this we use the Scriptures and human reasoning as follows:

(1) It is Opposed to Scripture. The Scriptures state: “After his kind” (Gen. 1:24). This pins the species down to themselves, forbidding them to evolve into a completely new species.

(2) There is No Record of Animal Becoming Man. Surely, in six thousand years, if

[pg121] evolution were true, there would be living examples of it today.

(3) There is No Evidence that the Missing Link Has Been Found. Many so-called history books show pictures of the creature they term as the missing link. These pictures are photographs of drawings, and not photographs of real creatures, as none of these exist. The “missing link,” we are told, is that creature between man and the ape. Its picture is wholly the imagination of the artist who took a piece of a bone or tooth and built a man around it. It is the same as a man taking a key hole and building a house around it. We would like to quote William Jennings Bryan concerning the “missing link”: “If the missing link has been found, why are they still looking for it?”

(4) There is No Evidence that Primitive Man Differed From Man Today.

(5) There Is Proof that Human Blood is One Blood. (Acts 17:26). World War II has proved this. The blood of a white man can be placed into the veins of a black man, and vice versa, and give life. Blood transfusions have only been in practice during the last hundred years, but God revealed this to us several thousand years ago.

(6) There is a Great Difference Between the Constitution of Man and Animal.

(a) Physically. Man is an upright being, while animals are on all fours.

(b) Mentally. Man has intellect, while animals have instinct.

(c) Morally. Man is the only creature of God that has moral qualities.

(d) Spiritually. Man alone has been created with spiritual concepts. He alone of all the creatures can worship God.

2. Positive. Man is a direct creation of God. “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Gen. 1:27).

B. His Nature.

1. Original Image of Man. “God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Gen. 1:26a). “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man” (Gen. 9:6). See also I Corinthians 11:7; James 3:9.

a. Seen in Man’s Triunity. “The LORD God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). “The very God of peace sanctify you wholly: and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (I Thess. 5:23).

b. Seen in Man’s Intellectual and Moral Nature. “Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him” (Col. 3:9, 10). See also Ephesians 4:24.

c. Seen in Physical Likeness. It is true that God is a Spirit (John 4:24); God is invisible (Col. 1:15). Yet God has always had a form in which He manifests Himself: “As for me, I shall behold thy face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied, when I awake with beholding thy form” (Ps. 17:15, R.V.9). See also Philippians 2:6,7; Mark 15:12; John 5:37, R.V.10 [pg122]

Christ was not made in the form or image of Adam, but Adam was made in the form, or image of Christ, who was to come: “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come” (Rom. 5:14).

2. Original Innocence of Man. Some declare that Adam was created in holiness, or righteousness. This is not quite correct. Man was created perfect, yes, but he was created in innocence. There is a vast difference between innocence and righteousness. Innocence is sinlessness that has never faced trial. Righteousness is innocence that has been tested and tried, and has come out victorious.

C. His Constitution.

As we shall see, man is composed of earthly (Gen. 2:7) and spiritual elements (I Thess. 5:23; Heb. 4:12).

1. Body. His body was made from the earth. This was the first part of man that was formed. “The LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). The body is set forth in Scripture as the house of the inner man. “How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is the dust, which are crushed before the moth?” (Job 4:19). See also II Corinthians 5:1, 3, 4. The process by which God made man is not known; we leave that up to God. Men give their opinions and speculations, but they remain as such. The word “dust” does not mean clay, or old dirty dirt, but the finest materials of the earth.

a. Analysis Proves Man’s Source. Modern chemical analysis detects in the body the same elements that are in the earth beneath man’s feet; such elements as sodium, carbon, iron, and the like.

b. Earth Sustains Man’s Existence. The body is sustained by that which grows out of the earth. It is man’s body and not his spirit that is sustained. Famine in our modern day has proved that if vegetation is taken away, life is taken away. Kill vegetation and you kill man.

c. Death Substantiates Man’s Elements. At death corruption sets in, and man’s body soon returns to the dust from which it was formed. “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return” (Gen. 3:19).

2. Soul. “The LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). See also I Corinthians 15:45. The soul is the seat of the emotions and appetites. Plants, animals and man have bodies; only animals and man have a soul; but only man has a spirit. The soul is that conscious life which is in man and animal. Plants have life, but it is unconscious life. There is a difference between the souls of men and the souls of animals. The animal’s soul is connected with his body, while man’s soul is connected with his spirit. The soul of an animal dies with the animal, but man’s soul never dies, for he was made a “living soul” — a soul that would never die. [pg123]

As stated, the soul of man is the seat of his emotions and appetites, and the following Scriptures will bring out the degrees of the same: Appetites: “Thou mayest kill and eat flesh in all thy gates, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, according to the blessing of the LORD thy God which he hath given thee: the unclean and the clean may eat thereof, as of the roebuck, and as of the hart” (Deut. 12:15). Desires: “If any man said unto him, Let them not fail to burn the fat presently, and then take as much as thy soul desireth; then he would answer him, Nay; but thou shalt give it me now: and if not, I will take it by force” (I Sam. 2:16). See also Deuteronomy 12:20; Psalm 107:18; Proverbs 6:30; Isaiah 29:8; I Samuel 18:1. Hates: “David said on that day, Whosoever getteth up to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind, that are hated of David’s soul, he shall be chief and captain. Wherefore they said, The blind and the lame shall not come into the house” (II Sam. 5:8). Mourns: “His flesh upon him shall have pain, and his soul within him shall mourn” (Job 14:22). Is Vexed: “The man of God said, Let her alone; for her soul is vexed within her: and the LORD hath hid it from me, and hath not told me” (II Kings 4:27b). Rejoices: “I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with a robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels” (Is. 61:10). Suffers: “They said one to another, We are verily guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the anguish of his soul, when he besought us, and we would not hear; therefore is this distress come upon us” (Gen. 42:21). Sorrows: “He said unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch” (Mark 14:34).

Where does man get his soul?

a. Pre-existence. This theory teaches that all souls that have ever been in the world, or shall ever be in the world, were created in the beginning. At time of conception, they are united with the body. This was taught by Plato, but it was never accepted by the church, as it is without Scriptural foundation.

b. Creationism. This belief holds that after forty days of conception the soul unites with the body. Roman Catholicism proposes this. If this belief is true, then God is the creator of sinful souls.

c. Traducianism. This is the truth which holds that both soul and body are derived from the parents. “Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth” (Gen. 5:3). See also Acts 17:24-26.11

3. Spirit. Here is where man differs from all creatures. In Hebrews 12:9 God is said to be “Father of spirits.” This does not mean the Father of angels, but of the spirits of men made perfect. God is never said to be the Father of souls.

As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also” (Jas. 2:26). When a body dies, the soul departs with the spirit of man. The soul and spirit can be separated “the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb. 4:12). However, there is no Scriptural proof that they are ever separated.12 The rich man of Luke 16 goes to Hades upon death, and he has both soul and spirit with him. See also Matthew 10:28.[pg124]

The spirit of man is the seat of his intelligence. “What man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God” (I Cor. 2:11). Animals do not possess intelligence. “Be ye not as the horse, or as the mule, which have no understanding: whose mouth must be held in with bit and bridle, lest they come near unto thee” (Ps. 32:9).13

The word “spirit,” both in the Hebrew and Greek, is sometimes translated as “breath,” and “wind.” The context determines the translation.

The materialists say that the word for spirit should be “breath,” and that when man dies he is gone forever.

Some people say that man lost his spirit at the Fall and regains his spirit at conversion. This would make him a dual being however, and this conception has no Scriptural grounds.

4. Heart. When we speak of the heart, we do not mean the muscle in the body, but rather the seat of conscience. “Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water” (Heb. 10:22). See also I John 3:19,20; Acts 2:26; 5:3, 5; Matthew 22:37. There is a warning that there may be a profession without a possession, a head knowledge without a heart trust. “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of the Father which is in heaven” See also Matthew 7:22, 23.

D. His Condition.

By this we mean man’s condition in his state of integrity before he fell.

1. His Knowledge. He had immediate knowledge, intuitive knowledge. He was not an adult infant. He named all animals that came from the hand of God; It would take an intelligent man to do this. “Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him” (Gen. 2:20).

2. His Fellowship. He was able to commune with God. “The LORD God commanded the man saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat” (Gen. 2:16). “God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat” (Gen. 1:29).

3. His Home. It was located in a garden. “The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed” (Gen. 2:8). Some men claim that primitive man was a cave man, but this was not so, for he was a garden man. The first records we have of men living in caves are of the persecuted: “Of whom the world [pg125] was not worthy; they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth” (Heb. 11:38), and of the insane: “when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit” (Mark 5:2).

This garden is not called Eden, but rather, the Garden in Eden. “Eden” means plains, or plateau. Armenia, no doubt, is the place where man began.

4. His Companion. “For Adam there was not found an help meet for him. . . . And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man” (Gen. 2:20, 22). The words “help meet” are not a compound word, but two separate ones, meaning “fit for.” Eve was “fit for” Adam. Some who laugh at this “rib story” cannot tell us where woman did come from. Why do you suppose God did not make woman from the dust? For the simple reason that God did not want to have two origins of man.

God can make a human being in four ways:

By conception.

Without the aid of a woman, as Eve.

Without a man or woman, as Adam.

Without a man, by a woman, as Christ.

5. His Work. “God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth” (Gen. 1:28). “The LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it” (Gen. 2:15). There was employment in the garden, but no toil. There was work, but not the kind that wears one out. The word “keep” in Genesis 2:15 is best translated14 “guard.” Against whom was Adam to guard the garden? Against wild animals?

No, there were none. Against wild men? No, for Adam was the only man. He was put on his guard against the possible appearance of the Devil. Whenever man is placed in a position of trust, God always gives ample warning.

6. His Food. “God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat” (Gen. 1:29). The first man and beast of the field were vegetarians. Their diets included no meat. Man was not carnivorous as evolutionists claim.

7. His Responsibility.

a. To Replenish the Earth With a New Order Man. “God blessed them and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it” (Gen. 1:28). Adam was the first man: “The first man Adam was made a living soul” (I Cor. 15:45). Eve is the mother of all human beings. “Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living” (Gen. 3:20). [pg126]

b. To Abstain from Eating of the Fruit. This fruit was of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. “The LORD God commanded the man saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2: 16, 17).

They were allowed to eat freely, as there was plenty. There was only one tree forbidden them. We do not know what kind of fruit it was. Nothing was wrong with the fruit; there was just God’s prohibition behind it. God wanted Adam and Eve to have knowledge, but he did not want them to gain it by disobedience. Re-member, man had been placed on his guard; he had been warned of the enemy; Satan did not come in unawares. This being true, why did God allow Adam and Eve to be subjected to the attack of the Devil? Testing always comes before a blessing. Man always has to be tried before he is promoted.

E. His Leadership. (Headship)

The entire human race comes from that one man, Adam. As is the head, so are the descendants.

1. Ethnography. This is the branch of anthropology that considers man geographically and descriptively, treating of the subdivision of races, the causes of migration, and related matters. This science points to a common homeland — Armenia.

2. Comparative Philology. This is the science of language, and it considers that men all come from the same origin.

3. Psychology. This is the science of the mind, and it also indicates that man comes from one origin.

4. Physiology. This is the science that deals with the organic structure of the body, and it declares that all men come from the same source, a common origin.

II. Man In His State of Sin

A. The Fall of Man.

Some may say that the fall of man is an old Babylonian fable, but we have only to look upon man and see him toil for his bread, weaken in his diseases, and die in his misery, to realize that he has had a fall. “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Rom. 5:12). [pg127]

1. The Source of Sin. “Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” (Gen. 3: 1). “I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (II Cor. 11:3). God is not speaking about a beast when He mentions the serpent, but a person. Notice that the Scripture does not say, “more subtle than any other beast of the field,” but leaves out the word “other,” stating only that he is more subtle than any beast. This is merely a statement of what God thinks of the Devil.

Nowhere in Scripture does it state that the Devil was in the serpent, but it does say that the serpent was the Devil. “He laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years” (Rev. 20:2).

2. The Nature of Sin. “The serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat” (Gen. 3:4-6). Now the fruit was all right; it was good fruit, with only the prohibition of God behind it. Some people may contend that it was a small thing to bring about man’s downfall, but we ask the question, “How many steps does it take to fall off a bluff?”

a. He Doubted God’s Love. In doubting God’s love, man denied God’s goodness, and acted apart from God and became a sinner. “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Prov. 14:12). See also Isaiah 55:6.

b. He Doubted God’s Word. In doubting God’s Word, man denied His Truth; denying His Truth, he acted in spite of God and became a criminal. “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law” (I John 3:4).

c. He Doubted God’s Authority. In doubting God’s authority, man denied God’s deity; denying His deity, he became contrary to God. Thus, he became God’s enemy and a rebel in God’s universe. “The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 8:7, 8).

The testing was given to see if man would stay true to God. He failed because he wanted to be a god. The Devil himself fell (Is. 14), because he wanted to be like the Most High God. This brought about his downfall, so he planted the same seed of false ambition in Adam and Eve to see if it would bring about their downfall, and it did.

Some may ask, “Was this fair to them?” They were warned and placed on guard against Satan. There was only one prohibition in the garden. They did not need the fruit; they lacked nothing. [pg128]

3. The Effects of Sin.

a. Immediate Effects Upon Eve.

(1) Shame. “They both were naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons” (Gen. 2:25; 3:7). God himself is clothed with a garment of light (Ps. 104:2); and when He made man, he made him in His own image and likeness. Thus, we believe that man also was clothed with a garment of light. When man sinned, that clothing of light was lost, and he made himself a fig leaf covering to take the place of that which was lost. Ever since, man has tried to put on what God once gave him, but he has nothing but filthy rags.

(2) Fear. “He said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself” (Gen. 3:10). Man still tries to hide from God.

(3) Separation from God. There is no doubt that man lost his perfect nature and ended his fellowship with God. There is no such thing as the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man of the natural man, the unsaved man.

(4) Expulsion from the Garden. “The LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the end of the garden of Eden cherubims, and a flaming sword, which turned every way to keep the way of the tree of life” (Gen. 3:23, 24). Man was driven out.

(5) Lost Lordship Over Creation. In the beginning Adam was indeed the ruler of all earthly creatures: “Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beast of the field; the fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the sea” (Ps. 8:6-8). This is not true of man today. He has lost that lordship. Christ will return it to man when He comes again (Heb. 2 and Is. 11).

b. Remote Effects Upon Adam’s Posterity.

(1) The Spirit is Darkened. “This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart” (Eph. 4:17, 18). The darkened room of understanding will remain darkened until the Holy Spirit comes in to illuminate.

(2) The Soul Is Debased arid Corrupt. Unbelievers, “being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness to work all uncleanness with greediness” (Eph. 4:19). See also Jeremiah 17:9.

(3) The Body Is Subjected to Disease and Death. “The creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God” (Rom. 8:21).

4. The Effects on Sin.

a. The Immediate Expression of God’s Judgment.

(1) On the Serpent. “The LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Gen. 3:14, 15). Satan, in all of his majesty, is considered nothing but a serpent. This is a figure of speech, for we know that snakes do not eat dust. [pg129]

God’s decree unto the serpent that he should eat dust all the days of his life, showed the contempt in which He held the Devil.

(2) On the Woman. “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (Gen. 3:16).

(3) On Creation. “Unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field” (Gen. 3:17, 18).

(4) On Man. “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return” (Gen. 3:19). See also Genesis 5:29.

b. The Future Expression of God’s Judgment. “The fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolators, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death” (Rev. 21:8).

5. The Provision for the Sinner. “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Gen. 3:15). In the hour that man sinned, God promised a Redeemer. The Seed of the woman is no one else but Jesus Christ. “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skin, and clothe them” (Gen. 3:21). When they realized their nakedness, they covered themselves with aprons of fig leaves. God clothed them with animal skins instead. As far as covering their nakedness was concerned, fig leaves were as good as animal skins; however, blood had to be spilt — “For without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.” They had to be covered with that which was slain for their sins. Likewise, the sinner today has to be clothed with the righteousness of Him who died for them.

B. The Fallen Sons of Adam.

1. Their Standing.

a. In Adam. “Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (I Cor. 15:21, 22).

See also I Corinthians 15:45, 47; Romans 5:12-21. There are only two representative men in the world: the first man and the second man; the first Adam and the last Adam. All men are born in Adam; all born-again men are in Christ.

b. Of Sin and Guilt. “What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin, as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one” (Rom. 3:9, 10). See also Romans 3:19.

2. Their State. By their state we mean their spiritual condition; that is, the absence of righteousness in their spiritual life.

a. Sinful in Nature. “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Ps. 51:5). See also Ephesians 2:3; Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 8:7; [pg130] Galatians 5:19-21.

b. Sinful in Practice. “We ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another” (Titus 3:3). See also Romans 3:23; Colossians 1:21; Psalm 14:1-3.

c. Lost in Sin. “The Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10). See also Isaiah 53:6; II Corinthians 4:3, 4.

d. Spiritually Dead. “You hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins...Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, by grace are ye saved” (Eph. 2: 1, 5). God’s picture of a sinner is a dead man, a man with all of the organs of movement, but no motion. Likewise, the sinner cannot move in the things of God.

e. Under God’s Wrath. “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom. 1:18). See also John 3:36.

f. Waits for Death. “It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment (Heb. 9:27).

g. Sure of Hell. “Whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire” (Rev. 20:15). See also Revelation 21:8.

III. Man In His State of Grace

A. His Standing.

1. In Christ. As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (I Cor. 15:22). See also I Corinthians 15:21, 45, 47; Romans 5:12-21.

2. Of Perfection. “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love. . . . To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved” (Eph. 1:4, 6). There are no charges against the Head; and, as that is so, there can be no charges against the Body.

B. His State.

By this we mean his spiritual condition. This differs from the life of the unbeliever. In the believer’s life righteousness is present — the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ.

1. A New Creature. “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away, behold, all things are become new” (II Cor. 5:17). See also 11 Peter 1:4; Galatians 6:15; John 3:16. Regeneration is a re-creation. Only God can create; only God can re-create.

2. Saved. “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began” (Il Tim. 1:9). See also Ephesians 2:8,9. [pg131]

3. Dead Unto Sin. “Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 6:11). “Who his ownself bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed” (I Peter 2:24).

4. Child of God. “As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” (John 1:12). “Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:26).

5. Under God’s Favor. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ” (Eph. 1:3). See also Romans 5:2.

6. Waits for God and Glory. “Our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able to subdue all things unto himself” (Phil. 3:20,21).

7. Sure of Heaven. “The Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen” (II Tim. 4:18). See also I Peter 1:4.

C. His Two Natures.

The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would” (Gal. 5:17).

The above Scriptures could not describe anyone but a saved man. The sinner has but one nature; the child of God has two natures. Every true believer has experienced the warfare of which Paul speaks. This warfare is best demonstrated by the household of Abraham. He had two sons — Ishmael, the older; and Isaac, the younger. Ishmael stands for that born of the flesh, while Isaac stands for that born of the Spirit. The trouble started when Isaac came into the household. Trouble comes into a Christian’s life when Christ enters in.

1. The Description of the Old Nature.

a. Names and Characteristics.

(1) The Flesh. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh” (John 3:6). See also Romans 7:18, 23; 8:9. By “the flesh” we do not mean “muscles and sinews,” which are part of the human body, but rather the carnal nature, which all possess at birth. There is no such thing as our being in the flesh; the flesh is in us. No man has ever begotten an unfallen man. “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing” (Rom. 7:18a). See also John 6:63; Romans 8:8. There is no such thing as a person being born with a “divine spark” within them.

(2) The Natural Man. “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (I Cor. 2:14). This is what man is by nature, by his natural birth. [pg132]

(3) The Old Man. “Our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin” (Rom. 6:6). See also Ephesians 4:22; Colossians 3:9. This is the man of old — what we once were: corrupt, full of evil desires and lusts.

(4) The Outward Man. “Though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day” (II Cor. 4:16).

(5) The Heart. “From within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: all these evil things come from within, and defile the man” (Mark 7:21-23). We hear so much of man having a change of heart, but this is impossible, for only God can give a new heart.

(6) The Carnal Mind. “The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” (Rom. 8:7).

(7) Sin. “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Rom. 5:12). The word “sin” refers to the fallen nature of man, while “sins” refer to the actions of this nature.

b. The Character and End.

(1) It Is an Adam’s Nature. This means that Adam fell, and his children are, therefore, fallen children of a fallen father.

(2) It Is an Inherited Nature. We receive our fallen nature from Adam.

(3) It Is an Evil Nature. The eighth chapter of Romans is a commentary on this point.

(4) It Is an Unchangeable Nature. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh” (John 3:6a). As long as man lives, that fallen nature remains in him. It will be eradicated only at the resurrection of the dead in Christ, and the transformation of those alive in Christ, at His second appearing.

(5) Its End Is Death. “The wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23a). See also Romans 8:5-13.

2. The Description of the New Nature.

a. Its Names and Characteristics.

(1) Spirit. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6).

(2) Divine Nature. There “are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the correction that is in the world through lust” (II Peter 1:4). See also I John 3:9; 5:18, 19.

(3) The New Man. “Put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness” (Eph. 4:24). See also Colossians 3:10; II Corinthians 5:17.

(4) The Inward Man. “Though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day” (II Cor. 4:16). “I delight in the law of God after the inward man” (Rom. 7:22). See also Ephesians 3:16.

(5) Mind. “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God: but with the flesh the law of sin” (Rom. 7:25). [pg133]

b. Its Character and End.

(1) It Is a Christly Nature.

(2) It Is An Imported Nature..

(3) It Is a Holy Nature.

(4) It Is an Unchangeable Nature.

(5) It Is Non-forfeited Nature.

Verses 1 and 2 of I John 2 ‘speak of the relation of the saint with the Father. Even when the saint sins it is a family matter.

(6) It’s End is Resurrection and Rapture. “Behold, I shew you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and this mortal shall put on immortality... But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ (I Cor. 15:51-53, 57).

3. The Conflict Between the Two Natures.

a. The Believer’s Experience. Every child of God has two natures; the unsaved man has only one nature. The old nature cannot be eradicated while the believer lives in the flesh; therefore, we have the fight between the old and new natures. “The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would” (Gal. 5: 17). Romans 7:15-25 is another marvelous example illustrating this truth. However, someone may declare that this passage shows the conflict in Paul’s life before he was saved, but one verse in this passage clearly reveals that this conflict, so vividly described, occurred after he was saved: “I delight in the law of God after the inward man” (Rom. 7:22). No unsaved man ever delights after the law of God. Also, only the saved man has the inward man, which is the new nature.

b. The Believer’s Responsibility.

(1) In Relation To the Old Nature.

(a) Accept God’s Estimate of It. “Our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 6:6-11). This one truth must be pointed out: the old man is never said to be crucified in the believer, but is crucified with Christ. It is a reality! Accept it! It is not a matter of feeling, but one of faith. All of this truth is according to God’s view. As for the believer’s view, he knows that the old nature, the old man, is not dead; he is very much alive. The Scripture says, “Reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin.” If the old nature were actually dead, the believer would not have to reckon him so; he would know.

(b) Make No Provision for the Flesh. “Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof (Rom.13:14). In other words, do not feed the flesh. Starve it. [pg134]

(c) Mortify the Flesh. “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry” (Col. 3:5). A stronger term is, “Put to death, therefore, your members.” The words “as good as dead” (Heb. 11:12) are the same terminology.

(d) Never Try to Improve It. “Neither yield your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God” (Rom. 6:13).

(e) Put It Off. “Put off concerning the form of conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts” (Eph. 4:22). The same word is translated “laid down” in Acts 7:58.

(2) In Relation to the New Nature.

(a) Reckon Ourselves to Be Alive. “Reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 6:11).

(b) Walk in Newness of Life. “We are his workmanship, created unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10). See also Romans 6:14; 7:6.

(c) Feed and Nourish It. “As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby” (I Peter 2:2). We are to feed the new nature by the exposition of the Word, and not by the exhortation of man. We know we have two natures, and it is well to consider that the food for one will starve the other. It is the individual Christian who must decide which man, the old or the new, shall be fed. He cannot feed both at the same time.

(d) Put On the New Man. “Put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness” (Eph. 4:24).

(e) Depend Upon the Indwelling Spirit for Power. “Grieve not the Holy Spirit of od, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption” (Eph. 4:30). “My brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might” (Eph. 6:10). “Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts” (Zech. 4:6b).15

Chapter 3 – A Six Day Creation

Dogmatically holding on to God's six day creation account alleviates major false teachings that are alive and growing in the twenty first century since our Lord Jesus Christ. The theory of evolution (which is more accurately and scientifically an irresponsible hypothesis; there not being enough evidence to advance it to theory), the gap theory (again properly categorized as an irresponsible hypothesis), and the Nephilim “Giant” theory (a wild and irresponsible hypothesis), are three such false teachings that will be addressed and debunked in this short study.

Consider that inside of Christianity Satan has three categories of misleaders working against the cause of Christ, those who would believe scholarly man over the Bible, those who do not believe enough Bible, and those who believe to much Bible. Noble minds and charismatic characters readily advance from the position of “the mislead” to the position of “the misleader.” The first of these misleaders is dealt with elsewhere in this work16, but the latter two fit well the errors exposed in this section. The evolutionist clearly does not believe enough Bible, i.e. denying the six day creation, supposing bio-genesis, and denying the seven declarations of “after his kind.” The last category, those who believe to much Bible, needs a more careful consideration here.

Those who believe in a flat earth call themselves the true literalists of Bible interpretation. If a tree can be tall enough to reach heaven and be seen “thereof to the end of all the earth” (Daniel 4:10-11) then, they suppose, “the Bible teaches that the world is flat and we ought to believe the Bible rather than man.”17 You might debate for hours with such mislead individuals but they will not be swayed, they are certain that they simply believe more Bible than you do. I loosely categorize them here as those who believe to much Bible.

Those who would believe in a Genesis gap consider themselves sincere devoted students of the Bible, who can see things that others overlook. Little snippets of Scripture, hidden away in little obscure references, they say, teach us that Genesis 1:2 is in a “dateless past”, includes the overthrow of a primal order, and references cataclysmic changes from divine judgment. For them, these references, taken out of their context, are unequivocal, and those who will not see it, well, they are just ignorant of the secret, hidden things of the Bible. They go on to see that angels bred with humans, creating half-breed giants, and that is why God destroyed the world in a flood. They go on to see that giants were in Canaan land, and we all know where giants come from,... God said so. Currently they suppose that Washington DC is filled with these giants and there is a whole cult of charismatic leaders teaching things about the end-times and Nephilims. These suppose that they believe more Bible than most because they have a special inspired insight to the hidden things of God. I loosely categorize them here as those who believe to much Bible.

God means what he says and he says what he means. That is the basic principle employed in debunking each of the false teachings of evolutionists, gaptists, and nephilimites. The three spring from three sources of error, the rebellious heart of the atheist, the errant heart of the Bible corrector, and the deceitful heart of the charismatic teacher. These three errors from these three sources serve well in underpinning the importance of holding God at his Word in deriving all doctrine systematically while holding tenaciously to his decree that all Scripture is the inerrant, infallible, verbally inspired word of God. Some Scripture excerpts will highlight this proper approach.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2Tim 3:16-17

We have also a more sure word of prophecy;... Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2Peter 1:19-21

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light....And God saw the light, that it was good:... And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters,... And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.... and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, ... and it was so.... and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night;... and it was so.... he made the stars also.... and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,... and God saw that it was good.... And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind,... and it was so.... And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:...So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. ... And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Genesis 1 - 2:3

A word for word belief in God's Genesis accounting alleviates the false teachings about man... yeah, about most religions and theologies themselves.

Six Days With No Evolution

Believing that God means what he says and says what he means refutes every tenet of evolution. There need be no extensive research into how one gauges the age of rocks and bones, nor knowledge of anyone's kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genes and species. One does not even need to know a specific evidence that refutes an evolutionary, survival of the fittest concept. Taking God at his Word thoroughly refutes evolution. At the heart of it all there are only two concepts, creation vs evolution.

The creationist declares that he has the Bible on his side, and the evolutionist declares he has science on his side. There is no middle ground here, one is truth and one is lie. The Word has said that He is Truth (John 14), and the Word of God is our sole and final authority, so let's look for a moment at their authority, science. Science is, by their definition, all natural science; there is no room or allowance for any Supernatural in their scientific method. None, noda, zip. In fact they have taken particular care to deny every Bible recorded instance of a Supernatural involvement. The “they” in this declaration is unregenerate, fallen and depraved man, and “their” involvement in this denial is aged and varied. What is “new” in their development is a formal “scientific method” which they most highly esteemed and made their final authority around the turn of the last century.

Their greatest challenge, and now their greatest success, has been the denial of the Supernatural Creator and construction of the lie of evolution. They have no scientific evidence, i.e. their finest DNA laboratories cannot reconstruct how breeding dogs eventually came to produce a Clydesdale horse, or egg laying lizards came to produce a bald eagle, and yet they have so dynamically taught their concepts to three or four generations of our children that evolution is readily accepted as “scientific fact.” They now slander and vilify any creationist as one who “rejects science.” Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Bill Maher, and Bill Nye18 have publicly promoted that any person teaching children that the Bible is true should be charged with child abuse.19

Dr. Cambron has already outlined for us that man's origin is “Not by Abiogenesis or Spontaneous Generation” and “Not by Evolution or Natural Developments” and proposed that these speculations are so preposterous that they need no answer from a true Bible student. Anyone who would purport to stand on some middle ground and suppose some type of theistic evolution is totally naive of this bigger picture. Theistic evolution calls God the big deceiver. Let's say it again, God says what he means and means what he says.

Euro Team Outreach Inc. developed an exceptional “Bible First” outreach program that clarifies all of God's Word through a study of Genesis. In their Lesson 5 they give this Biblical defiance of abiogenesis:

Did you know?

Biogenesis is the development of living organisms from other living organisms. The Bible describes this process and the stability of each kind of living oranism when it repeatedly uses the phrase “after his kind.”

* “...the herb yielding seed after his kind...” (Genesis 1:12)

* “...the tree yielding fruit... after his kind...” (Genesis 1:12)

* “...the great whales...after their kind...” (Genesis 1:21)

* “...every winged fowl after his kind...” (Genesis 1:21)

* “...the beast of the earth after his kind...” (Genesis 1:25)

* “...cattle after their kind...” (Genesis 1:25)

* “...everything that creepeth... after his kind...” (Genesis 1:25)

The phrase stresses the reproductive integrity of each kind of animal and plant. Today we understand that biogenesis occurs because all of these reproductive systems are governed by their respective genetic codes. ...

(Lesson 5) Conclusion

The first chapter of Genesis is without doubt the most astounding historical account known to man. It is the foundation that gives meaning to life and answers so many of our hardest philosophical questions: “Where did I come from?”, “Why am I here?”, “How did the universe originate?”, and “What is the true meaning of life?” We who believe the Bible rest confidently in its simple answer: God. God made the world. God made us. God set the standard of good and evil and wrote it on our hearts. God loves us, and God desires fellowship with us.

Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.” (Nehemiah 9:6)20

It does not take great study or in depth research to expel the atheistic hypothesis of evolution, it takes only a belief in God's inerrant, infallible, verbally inspired Word found in our Holy Bible. Understand that “they” mean by “science” only a natural science, and even that is twisted to say what “they” want it to say. Now connect that with the understanding that God means what he says and says what he means and evolution is seen as only, and at best, via the rules of their own scientific method, a very bad hypothesis. As Dr. Cambron stated previous, the evolutionists speculations are so preposterous that they need no answer from a true Bible student.

Six Days With No Gap

Believing that God means what he says and says what he means refutes every tenet of the gap theory. The idea of a gap left open in God's Genesis account was conceived in brilliant minds of Bible believing scholars. C. I. Scofield (1843-1921), author of the notes for “The Scofield Study Bible” was one of the earliest Bible scholars to extensively document this Gap Theory. Through his extensive Bible study Scofield establishes that Genesis 1:2 is in a “dateless past,” includes the overthrow of a primal order, and references cataclysmic changes from divine judgment. His supposing that there needed to be a “dateless past” inserted into the Genesis account was at least seeded by the “scientific proof” that rocks are, and our universe is, millions of years old, ergo God's record of a 4,000 BC creation must be a little suspect. In developing and defending this gap in God's creation record, C. I. Scofield was absolutely convinced that he had unlocked an important key to referencing and cross referencing Bible truth about a primal order that was destroyed in a divine judgment. There are Bible scholars who built on Scofield's gaptist foundation and vehemently deny all naysayers.

The logic that glues the gaptist ideology together seems powerful to some, so one needs a good dose of skepticism available as Scofield's defense is presented. Little snippets of scripture are interwoven to produce the logical underpinning of the gap theory; they are intriguing and they construct a sturdy straw-house, but it is a house-of-cards. God does not plainly and openly reveal some things to man. When Satan fell, intricate details about angels, fallen or faithful, and the time of Christ's return are among those details which are purposefully left out. There is a theme in the Bible, and they are not part of it. God's progressive revelation to man about man and his needs does not include a lot of angelology. When a Bible student supposes that, through extensive cross-referencing, or perhaps even divine revelation, they discovered some unrevealed thing, their teachings often take on a life of their own. It always does one good to recall Deuteronomy 29:29, “The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.” Everything that God wanted revealed got written down in the Holy Bible. His themes are easily followed and his ability to keep the main thing the main thing is remarkable; for carnal man, not so much. Remember, God means what he says and says what he means; one should be cautious about trailing off on winding trails blazed by even the brightest of Bible students turned teachers.

C. I. Scofield introduces his gap theory with the word “but”in a footnote connected to the word “created” in Genesis 1:1. “But three creative acts are recorded in this chapter: (1) the heavens and the earth, v.1; (2) animal life, v.21; and (3) human life, vs. 26,27. The first creative act refers to the dateless past, and gives scope for all the geologic ages.”21 Creationists, arguing for the exacting words of God in this verse, make particular note that “God created the heaven (singular) and the earth.” Modernist translators make the heavens plural here in their attempt to correct the Bible and put what they suppose God meant to say. Scofield makes the same plural reference. The Hebrew singular is significant here because Genesis 1:1 is not referencing the three heavens called out later in revelation, it is referencing the creation of the space continuum. It is carefully defended by ardent Bible believing creationists that three continua are created in this verse - time, space, and matter.22 Scofield's reference to “the heavens (plural) and the earth” as one of his “creative acts” is thereby significant in that he is about to cram thousands and thousands of years into a misrepresentation of what the Bible states to begin with.

Notice also that Scofield, by making this verse reference a “dateless past,” gives scope for all the “geologic ages” ardently defended by atheistic evolutionists of his day. The atheistic evolutionist considers only Sir Charles Lyell's (1797-1875) theory of uniformity and sees only millions of years of rock layers, which must have stacked one upon another; he and C. I. Scofield call them the “geologic ages.” Ergo the gaptists cater to the atheistic evolutionists who allow no Supernatural interventions in their natural science, which is indeed “science so called”23 (1Tim. 6:20).

Scofield continues his introductory development of a Gap Theory with a footnote attached to “without form” in the second sentence God's creation account. Therein he states,

Jer. 4:23-26, Isa 24:1 and 45:18, clearly indicate that the earth had undergone a cataclysmic change as the result of a divine judgment. The face of the earth bears everywhere the marks of such a catastrophe. There are not wanting intimations which connect it with a previous testing and fall of angels. See Ezk. 28:12-15 and Isa. 14:9-14, which certainly go beyond the kings of Tyre and Babylon.”24

One needs to examine these verses in context; C. I. Scofield is expert at cross-referencing Bible verses. This author has leaned on his cross-referencing genius for over fifty years. His reference to Jeremiah 4:23 is key to understanding how C. I. Scofield got started down this gaptist rabbit trail. God used the phrase “without form <08414>25, and void<0922>” in the Genesis opening account of his creative act. As a general rule when a key word or phrase is repeated in two or more Scriptures it is worth investigation. This is best done in the original languages, but when cross-referencing between the old and new testaments it is best done, for English Bible students, with a King James Bible. The fifty-seven exceptional linguists who took seven years translating from the very best original manuscripts, and finished their work in 1611 AD, were very cognizant of God's propensity for repeating key words and phrases. All modernist ecumenical translators, on the other hand, were very cognizant that they had to use different manuscripts and different words, to include over 60,000 significant deviations, in order to secure their lucrative copyrights. They wholeheartedly did both; be very leery of any organization or Bible Society that tries to copyright God's words; at best they give what they think God meant to say. Modernist bibles are terrible for cross-referencing God's words; if you do not have access to a KJB invest in a Strong's Concordance26 or learn to use Greek and Hebrew.

Here are the Scriptures that Scofield used to suppose an overthrown “primal order.”

Jer. 4:3 For thus saith the LORD to the men of Judah and Jerusalem, Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns....

22 For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.

23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form <08414>, and void<0922>; and the heavens <08064>, and they had no light.

24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.

25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.

28 For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.

To this Scripture, verse 23, C. I. Scofield adds this footnote, “Cf. Gen. 1:2. 'Without form and void' describes the condition of the earth as the result of the judgment (vs. 24-26; Isa. 24:1) which overthrew the primal order of Gen. 1:1.”27

Although the context of this Scripture is about God's fierce anger toward the men of Judah and Jerusalem (vr. 3,22), and although the reference, “the whole land shall be desolate,” (vr. 27) requires it to be about what God did do to his promised land, verses 23 through 26 do seem to intimate a previous destruction; they seem to “go beyond” the context at hand. This supposing that a Scripture goes beyond its present context is not unprecedented. Scofield justifies it previously by referencing Ezk. 28:12-15 and Isa. 14:9-14, “which certainly go beyond the kings of Tyre and Babylon.” The difference here is that the insight gained about the fall and upcoming destruction of Satan in Ezekiel and Isaiah, completely aligns with other references in Scripture, but the rise and fall of a primal order wedged in between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 completely disrupts other references in Scripture.

Our small minds may not conceive how Satan could have been created and then fallen within the fifty-six verses before Genesis 3:1, but Scripture's require that it be so. Further, all things that were created were created in six days of creation (Exod. 20:11, 31:17), were created by The Word, The Christ (John 1:1-3, Eph. 3:9, Rev. 4:11), and were created very good (Gen. 1:31); Satan and all heaven's hosts (angels and more) are created beings (Ezk. 28:13,15, Job 38:6-7, Isa 45:12, Col. 1:16, Rev. 10:6), and were thus created in that six day period. The creation account allows no gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

Further the Bible is clear that there was no death in the uni-verse prior to man's fall (Rom 5:12-18). The gaptist theory has the Garden of Eden setting on piles of bones from an overthrown primal order. When Genesis 1:1-5 is taken literally as inerrant, infallible, verbally inspired, holy Scripture it opens a vista of a created time continuum, a space continuum, and a matter continuum, all spoken into existence out of nothing at all, all codependent and interdependent, all for a moment without form and void, all completely supportive of everything we might ever understand about matter, space, and time via atomic structures and molecules bonding, via outer regions the universe and black-holes disintegrating matter, or via Einstein's E = m c2 and theories of relativity.28 There is no room for an artificial insertion of geologic ages between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

The ever present danger of ones hypothesized insights into secret and hidden things in Scripture is they take on a life of their own and soon Scriptures that have nothing whatsoever to do with the theory suddenly clearly fit into the offshoot. Such is clearly the case with this gaptist hypothesis. Isaiah 24 has nothing whatsoever to do with the hypothesized primal order, and yet gaptists hold that verse one is talking about nothing but their hypothesis.

Isa. 24:1 Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof.

2 And it shall be, as with the people, so with the priest; as with the servant, so with his master; as with the maid, so with her mistress; as with the buyer, so with the seller; as with the lender, so with the borrower; as with the taker of usury, so with the giver of usury to him.

3 The land shall be utterly emptied, and utterly spoiled: for the LORD hath spoken this word.

4 The earth mourneth and fadeth away, the world languisheth and fadeth away, the haughty people of the earth do languish.

5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.

6 Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.

From this lapse in proper exegesis, from this misplaced hermeneutics, gaptists now see Isa 45:18 to “celarly indicate that the earth had undergone a (their supposed) cataclysmic change as the result of divine judgment.”

Isa. 45:17 But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.

18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

19 I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.

Once a bad hypothesis, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the mainstream theme of Holy Scriptures, has taken good root it will twist the way many other Scriptures are seen, it will enlist some contingent of supporters, and it will be ardently defended against naysayers. In a footnote on Genesis 1:3 Scofield extends a subtle misrepresentation to support his hypothesis. He states there,

Neither here (in Genesis 1:3) nor in verses14-18 is an original creative act implied. A different word is used. The sense is, made to appear, made visible. The sun and moon were created “in the beginning.” The “light” of course came from the sun, but the vapour diffused the light. Later the sun appeared in an unclouded sky.”29

In C. I. Scofield's third note supporting a gap hypothesis, he necessitates that the sun and moon were not created on the fourth day as God states, but that they were, of course, and of necessity for this gap hypothesis, part of the first verse of creation. The whole defense of the gap hypothesis has a twisted, contorted problem with God's accounting of his six day creation. When it is necessary to twist and contort God's word to fit a hypothesis it is far better to discard the hypothesis than continue the contortion. God says what he means and means what he says, all things were created in six days.

A contingent of supporters, from a Bible institute in Florida, have even taken 2Peter 3:4-6 out of the context of the world flood of Noah's day and force fit it into their hypothesized destruction of a primal order. For them a gap is no longer hypothesized it is Bible doctrine, and they accuse their naysayers of being “willingly ignorant” as stated in verse 5 of this text. That, incidentally, may be the most polite thing their vitriol applies to those who disagree, i.e. those who study the creation account with a more objective reality.

Previously these gaptists were categorized with those who believe to much Bible because they suppose that they have found a hidden and secret interpretation that only the learned can see and believe. They are often attached to a charismatic defender of such a position and when one defies their mislead belief they excommunicate and villainize them. In that sense they pattern themselves like a cult, and have been viewed as such by some. The division is ugly and harmful to the cause of Christ, but, again, an appeal that they just believe the Bible is vain, because they suppose that they do. They suppose that they believe it better and more exactly than you do. Herein separate “camps” dwell together in unity, but that is not God's intent in Psalm 133.

Psalm 133:1 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!

2 It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron’s beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments;

3 As the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the LORD commanded the blessing, even life for evermore.

Six Days, No Gap, No Half-breed Angels But a Depraved Humanity

Believing that God means what he says and says what he means refutes every tenet of the idea that angel-half-breed giants are the problem with this universe. Again a whole cultic group breaks from the ranks of Bible believers because of the misrepresentation of a few verses. They are cultic because they ardently follow a few charismatic leaders and they are mislead because they develop and follow a theme that has nothing whatsoever to do with the main theme of the Bible, that Jesus Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost.

The whole cult hangs on a misinterpretation of Genesis 6:4 and an ignoring of Genesis 6:5-7. Genesis 6:4 might be easily misinterpreted in innocence, but examining how such a misrepresentation opened the door to such a brazen false teaching should make the student of the Bible leery about their interpretation. In Genesis 6:2 and 4 some hold that the “sons of God” were the “angels which kept not their first estate” (Jude 6), rather than the “sons of God” defined in John 1:12 “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” These “sons of God” are also directly referenced in Romans 8:14, 19, Philippians 2:15, 1John 3:1, 2. These purveyors of the idea that giants cause of the world's problems prefer this misrepresentation because Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7 attaches the title “sons of God” to angels.

Look for a moment where this misinterpretation takes its followers. The “giants in the earth in those days,” they suppose, were angel-half-breeds, being half angel and half human. That is the reason, they suppose, that God had to destroy the world with a flood, to eliminate these half-breeds. Further, they suppose, that these nasty angels bred with animals as well, that is why God had to destroy all the animals in the flood. This all makes logical sense to them, but defies the real reason for the flood as given in Genesis 6:5-7 wherein the depravity of man is in view.

Their suppositions continue on a more outlandish level; since Genesis 6:4 says there were giants “and also after that” it must be referring to the giants, Hebrew Nephilim <05303>, sons of Anak, that were found in the promised land. Now by a rule of first mention we all know where giants come from, they are angel-half-breeds and there they are opposing God, in the promised land. These sons of Anak were no doubt, they suppose, angel-half-breeds. Not only that but Deuteronomy 2 refers to a “land of giants” or a “tribe of giants” Hebrew Rephaim <07497>. The giants are again taking over and destroying mankind and they, supposing they are angelic-half-breeds, suppose they are the archnemesis of God. They suppose the giants are the problem and it has nothing to do with man and his depravity.

Their suppositions continue and reach even more outlandish levels, since those angel-half-breed giants are the theme of Bible times you can be certain that they are operating inside of our governments today. Suddenly the end-times teachings are adrift with tans-humans, reptilian-elites, conspiracy theorists, and a myriad of books by Steve Quayle. All this because some sincere Bible students thought “sons of God” in Genesis 6 might be referring to angels, and Satan built a cult out of those misgivings.

The interpretation, that “sons of God” here refers to believers is preferred for several reasons. The Lord Jesus Christ says angels are sexless (Matthew 22:30). In the line of Seth, wherein “then began men to call upon the name of the LORD” (Genesis 4:26), believers might well be refereed to as “sons of God” as in New Testament references (John 1:12, Romans 8:14, 19, Philippians 2:15, 1John 3:1, 2). In Deut. 7:1-3 God warns the children of Israel about the same deviant behavior that is referenced in Genesis 6:2-4: Deut 7:1 “When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, ... thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.” And in Isaiah 43:6-7 God calls those called by his name, sons. Such an understanding is far better than the Nephilim-phobia set in motion by by the other.

Most markedly, then, the latter is the preferred interpretation because the former sets in motion a false teaching that has nothing whatsoever to do with the overall theme of the Holy Bible, that our Lord Jesus Christ came into the world to seek and to save that which was lost. Even the remotest idea that angel-half-breeds are somehow involved in man's failings is contrary to that theme.

Chapter 4 – The Depravity of Man

The depravity of man addresses the natural condition of unregenerate man in regards to his moral perversion or his impairment of virtue and moral principles. The consideration of man's depravity would be straight forward were it not for the Presbyterian doctrine that describes and defends mans “Total Depravity.” John Calvin supposed that God was done with Israel, that the catholic church was to assume all the previous promises made to Israel, and that the church was therefore now the new “elect of God.” All of Calvin's errors about election, a catholic church, and his covenant theology may be traced to this misgiving, and the Presbyterian TULIP model that attempted to systematize and legitimize his error included what they thought was man's Total Depravity.30 In this system of error about election and predestination “man's inability to submit to God and do right is total,” and ergo Presbyterians, Calvinists, and Reformed theologians totally eliminate man's free will, and the Bible's “Whosoever wills.” Herein it will be shown that “Since Adam fell, every son and daughter of Adam is averse to good and inclined to evil,31 and man's depravity does not fit their definition of “total.” The refuting of the Presbyterian's TULIP is left for another effort32 but something needs to be said about man's depravity in a work considering anthropology.

Much more could be said about the depravity of man, but an excellent perspective can be gained by looking through the eyes of a capable author of a hundred-and-eighty years ago. In 1834 J. Thornton's book “Repentance” was published with the full title “Repentance Explained and Enforced; Being a Serious Appeal to Every Man's Conscience, On Its Nature, Necessity and Evidences.” When one finds a hundred-and-eighty year old work that addresses a subject it is usually a good read, and in this day when many run to and fro and knowledge is increased (Daniel 12:4) such works are readily available in one's living room. J. Thornton gives this exceptional discourse on man's depravity:

On the State of the Impenitent. [p13]

I will tell you, reader, in the beginning, what is my design in this little book: I do not intend to amuse you with curious questions, or engage you in fierce disputes, and vain janglings; but to show you the things that belong to your peace. You must soon die, and bid farewell to the world. You are gliding down the stream of time, into a shoreless and bottomless ocean. It is clear, from the word of God, that after death you must be either eternally happy, or eternally miserable. It is as plain as words can make it, that if you go on hardened in sin to the last, your precious immortal soul will be certainly lost, and lost forever. I therefore beg you serious attention to the subject of repentance. No subject is more fervently and urgently pressed upon men in the holy scriptures. Every messenger that God has sent to perishing sinners, has brought a call to repentance. Every instance of careless and profane cut off by death, is a loud call to the living. Every affliction in your own person, is a call from God to repentance. ...

[p16] The impenitent are in a state of spiritual darkness. It is said, This is life eternal, to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent. But sin is a dark cloud upon the mind, a thick veil drawn over the heart, which excludes the precious light of divine truth. The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1Cor. ii. 14. To one who is in this state, the clearest displays of the power, wisdom, justice, and goodness of God; and the fullest manifestations of the love, compassion , faithfulness, and glory of Christ, are only as the beauties of a fine prospect to a blind man. While the understanding, which is the window of the mind, remains shut, all within must be dreary darkness.

When there is no motion of love and gratitude in the heart, no breathing of fervent prayer from the lips towards God, the soul is dead in trespasses and sins. How strong, and yet how just, is the language of the prophet: Darkness hath covered the earth, and gross darkness the people. What can more truly describe the ignorance and stupidity of the carnal mind, than these words?...

[p18] The impenitent are in a state of distance from God. In the scriptures all are represented as wanderers from God. We all like sheep have gone astray, we have turned every one to his own way. Isa. liii. 6. We have forsaken the fountain of living waters, and hewed out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water. Jer. ii. 3. Since Adam fell, every son and daughter of Adam is averse to good and inclined to evil. Not only is the understanding darkened, but the will is perverted, and the affections are corrupted. Instead of seeking happiness from God, the everlasting spring of all blessings, we naturally seek it in the foolish devices and imaginations of our own hearts.

The distance from God, our Lord sets forth in a just comparison, Matt. vii. 13,14. Wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there are that go in thereat....

[p21] The impenitent are in a state of deep pollution. There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet are not washed from their filthiness. It has been said, “Man is a polished mirror, with one slight speck, vanity; and that speck is wiped off by death.” According to this fine flattering comparison, sin, it seems, must not be called a blot, nor even a stain, but a speck, a slight speck. Let us now examine what the word of God says respecting human nature, in its present state. He who sees into the heart, and will be the judge of all in the last day, must be allowed capable of giving the most just account of man. Turn to Gen. vi. 5-12. And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

If it should be thought this passage is a proof of the depravity of those only, who lived before the flood, turn to Job xv. 14,15,16. What is man that he should be clean, or he that is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints, yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight; how much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh in iniquity like water? Our Lord, who perfectly knew what was in man, opens that fountain of corruption, that forge of iniquity – the carnal heart. Mark viii. 21,22,23. For from within, out of the heart of man, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, lasciviousness, and evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness; all these evil things come from within, and defile the man. Nor can it be truly said, that some are free from depravity and sin. Every branch from the stock of Adam is corrupt, though every branch does not bring forth the same quantity of bad fruit. For proof of this, look into Rom. iii. 9-12. 9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one. ...

[p24] The impenitent are in a state of guilt and condemnation. It is awful to see a man, who has broken the laws of his country, trembling in his chains, as he hears the sentence which declares him guilty. Condemned to die for his crimes, he feels a thousand horrors, before the hour of execution comes. But that man is in a far more dreadful condition, whom the sentence of the divine law dooms to eternal misery. God, as a God of justice, will not suffer his authority to be trampled upon by the wicked, without calling them to an account for it. Sin, says the apostle John, is the transgression of the law. And God keeps a book of remembrance, in which every vicious deed, every idle word, and every sinful thought is registered.

Now consider that it is said, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in then book of the law, to do them.” And can you believe this without trembling? Is there nothing to alarm you in the wrath of the Almighty? Can you sleep undisturbed, in carnal ease, while the curse of the most high God hangs over your guilty head? But, perhaps, you think yourself clear of the charge brought against you. When the words of the law are repeated, you are ready to cry, All these things have I kept from my youth up: I never committed theft, adultery, nor murder. But is it not possible, you may be too hasty in this matter? Take the trouble of weighing what Christ says of the law in Matt. v. 22-35. There you will find, that slightly uttering the name of God, is profaneness; a wanton look, is adultery; anger, without a just cause, is murder; a grasping eagerness after the world, is covetousness and idolatry. By proceeding in this way, you will be convinced, that, although men's notions of duty and sin are very narrow, God's commandments are exceedingly broad. If the scriptures are to be believed, it is an undeniable truth, that, by the deeds of the law shall no man living be justified. Not the least room is left for self-righteous pretenses and pleas. Every mouth is stopped, and the whole world is become guilty before God. There is no way of escaping the awful judgments of God, but by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Rom. viii. 1. If you remain still in impenitence and unbelief, you are yet under the curse. He that believeth not, is condemned already, and the wrath of God abideth on him. John iii. 18-36.

[p26] The impenitent are in a state of bondage and misery. How wretched was the condition of the Israelites in Egypt, when they were not only under the iron rod of Pharaoh, the great tyrant, but also under the smarting scourges of those petty tyrants, the task masters! Well might they sigh and sicken over their hard labors and unpitied woes. but the state of unconverted men is far worse. They sell themselves to do the vilest drudgery. They are the slaves of Satan, and the servants of sin.

Paul declares that those who oppose themselves to the gospel are led captive by the devil at his will. And whither are you likely to be conducted by such a leader? What reward can you expect to receive from such a master? He will draw you on, by little and little, into his snares and fetters till you are as fast bound as if girt with chains of brass. He will promise many sweets, and give you apples of Sodom; he will show you the glories of the world, and plunge you in the horrors of despair.

The apostle Peter speaks of some who boast of their liberty, and yet are the servants of corruption. Such persons yield up their powers and members, as instruments of unrighteousness, to sin. Rom. vi. 13. And O, what a wretched state is this! Yet every impenitent man is tied down by the base customs of an evil world, and given up to serve divers lusts and pleasures, those cruel task-masters which are never satisfied.

Let it never be forgotten, that sorrow follows sin, as the shadow does the substance. Peter joins together the bond of iniquity and the gall of bitterness. Solomon says, The way of the trangressors is hard; and truly such as travel in that way, not only forsake their own mercies, but multiply their miseries at every step. Be not deceived with appearances. While men are so jovial in their revels, how often, even when the face is gay, is the heart sad! Colonel Gardiner, while he was eagerly pursuing the vanities and follies of the world, appeared always so full of life and spirit, that he got the name of the happy rake; but, after he became a new man, he declared, that, at the very time when he seemed so merry that other envied his pleasures, he was often so miserable in his own mind, as to wish himself a dog! It was a saying of Augustine, “The pleasures of sin are momentary; but its punishments are eternal.” These pleasures, even while they last, are mixed with bitterness.

I grant that there are some, who seem so completely stupified, as not in the least to feel their wretchedness. But a time is coming, that will awake them from sleep, and put all their dreams to flight. Hear the prosperous worldling saying to himself, Soul, thou hast much foods laid up for many years; take thine ease; eat, drink, and be merry. Luke xii. 19. But hold, vain boaster! those goods are not thy own. He who lent them, has not given up his right, nor forgotten his claim. Those many years set down in they reckoning, are not written in the book of God's decrees. Hark! a messenger knocks at the door. This night thy soul is required of thee! In stead of taking thy ease, now go take thy trial. Amidst all the stores prepared for thy perishing body, what provision hast thou for the immortal soul? Alas, poor wretch! thou hast had no shelter for it, but a refuge of lies; no clothing, but filthy rags; no food but empty husks. [Boston's Fourfold State]. O miserable condition, for the soul to be hurried unpardoned, unpurified, and unprepared, into the presence of a righteous and all-seeing Judge!

Let what has been said be applied to promote self-examination and humility.

If such as has just been described is the state of the impenitent, let me entreat you, reader, to examine whether it be your present condition. ... [p29] 33

This hundred-and-eighty year old glimpse into the state of the impenitent gives a profound insight to man's depravity. It does so without assaulting the free-will of man or the whosoever-wills of our Lord Jesus Christ, indeed it enhances both. It does so without supporting the Calvinist concept that man's spirit is dead, totally dead, and unable to speak or act or think. Thornton states “Since Adam fell, every son and daughter of Adam is averse to good and inclined to evil. Not only is the understanding darkened, but the will is perverted, and the affections are corrupted. Instead of seeking happiness from God, the everlasting spring of all blessings, we naturally seek it in the foolish devices and imaginations of our own hearts.” That pretty much captures what needs to be said about the depravity of man.

Chapter 5 – The Seven Dispensations for Mankind

One cannot account for a thorough coverage of Biblical anthropology without a consideration of the great stages of stewardship wherewith mankind has been and will be tested. A systematic review of the whole of Scripture discovers seven distinct stewardship tests for man. Since the concept of the progressive testing of man in these stewardship phases, properly called dispensations, insults and assaults Roman Catholic Church doctrine, and that of its Protestant offspring, the Biblical basis for this teaching needs careful development up front. A thorough development of dispensationalism with a thorough refuting of Catholic/Protestant Covenant and Replacement theology is found in volume 11 of this work developing a sound Biblical eschatology.

The idea of a stewardship for man is not foreign to our Bible. Our Lord Jesus Christ defines such a stewardship in Luke 12:36-37 & 40, “And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately. Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them.... Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not.” When Peter asks about such teaching, “Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?”, our Lord replies, “Who then is that faithful and wise steward <3623>, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?” This word for steward that Christ uses is the Greek word, oikonomos, oikonomos, meaning the manager of a household or of household affairs. Our Lord uses it again in Luke 16 to describe the affairs of an unjust steward, and the illustration of a steward left certain responsibilities is a common thread in Jesus' teachings (Matt. 20, 21, 25, Mark 12, Luke 12, 16, 20, et al. ). The Apostle Paul uses the principle in 1Cor. 4:1-2, “Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards <3623> of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required in stewards<3623>, that a man be found faithful.”, and again in Titus 1:7, “For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward <3623> of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre.” And the Apostle Peter implores us, “As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards <3623> of the manifold grace of God”(1Peter 4:10).

This idea of a stewardship is directly connected to the Bible's teaching about dispensations. The stewardship that our Lord described in Luke 16 uses the Greek word oikonomia, oikonomia, which comes from the previous root word oikonomos, oikonomos, and translates to our English word dispensation, i.e. stewardship and dispensation are synonymous, a steward being “Someone who manages property or other affairs for someone else.”34 The Apostle Paul speaks of a “dispensation of the gospel” (1Cor. 9:17), a “dispensation of the fullness of times” (Eph. 1:10), a “dispensation of the grace of God” (Eph. 3:2), and a “dispensation of God” (Col 1:25). All these employ the idea of stewardship. God leaves man, managing his affairs for a period of time, then holds him responsible for his stewardship in that dispensation. This is most aptly illustrated in the Garden of Eden where man was left with a rule to obey, he disobeyed and was held accountable. This might be called a dispensation of innocence, or freedom from guilt, because that is how it started.

Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary of American English defines a steward as, “A man employed in great families to manage the domestic concerns, superintend the other servants, collect the rents or income, keep the accounts, etc. See Gen 15:2 and 43:19.” and gives one definition of dispensation as, “That which is dispensed or bestowed; a system of principles and rites enjoined; as the Mosaic dispensation; the gospel dispensation; including, in the former the Levitical law and rites; in the latter the scheme of redemption by Christ.35 Two hundred years ago there were ample Bible students who knew the Bibles teachings about various dispensations. To them it was perfectly clear that Christ started a new covenant. To them it was perfectly clear that the rules in place after Moses came down from Mount Sinai, in 1492 BC, on that Pentecost Sunday, were changed by our Lord Jesus Christ in his “New Covenant”. Dispensationalism clarifies distinct periods of time wherein God's rules-for, or dealings-with, mankind change. This categorically happened four times before Mount Sinai.

C.I. Scofield (1843-1921), genius Bible scholar and one of the founders of Christian fundamentalism, is not the founder of dispensationalism, as Catholics and Calvinists contend. Nor is John Nelson Darby (1800-1882), the Anglo-Irish Bible teacher and renowned Plymouth Brethren its founder. These men popularized, advanced and defended the clear Bible teachings of dispensationalism, but Bible doctrine does not have human founders.

Scofield documents dispensationalism very clearly. The seven dispensations that the Bible portrays are 1) Innocence (Gen. 1:28), 2) Conscious (Gen.3:23), 3) Human Government (Gen. 8:20), 4) Promise (Gen. 12:1), 5) Law (Exod. 19:8), 6) Grace (John 1:17, Eph. 3:1-6), and 7) Kingdom (Eph. 1:10). In each of these dispensations man is given a set of rules or expectations from his Creator, and given a period of time wherein he is held accountable. Each dispensation ends in mans utter failure; Innocence – the Fall, Conscience – the first born man becomes the first first degree murderer and “the imaginations and thoughts of (man's) heart” brought about the world flood, Human Government – Tower of Babel, Promise – Bondage in Egypt, Law – Crucifixion of our Lord, Grace – As it was in the days of Sodom, and Kingdom – After the thousand years, Satan is loosed and quickly deceives the nations which rise up against Christ's throne. The dispensations as distinguished, exhibit the majestic, progressive order of the divine dealings of God with humanity. They show 'the increasing purpose' which runs through and links together the ages, from the beginning of the life of man to the end in eternity.36 These distinct dispensations are important for one who would “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth”(2Tim 2:15). For example, “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed. Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt” out of Exodus 22:18-21, belongs in the dispensation of Law, given to Israel, and these punishments are not applicable, even for Israel's government, in this dispensation of Grace wherein we live. God's despise for witchcraft, bestiality, idolatry, and vexing is not diminished however. Indeed discerning God's dispensations is essential for “rightly dividing the word of truth.”

Understand here that Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant theologians generally despise this Bible teaching about dispensations. They hold that the catholic church holds all the promises given to God's chosen nation, Israel (replacement theology), that God only has one covenant, a catholic church covenant (covenant theology), and that such teachings about dispensations only came up lately and are heretical. The wide gate and the broad path, with a majority of “orthodox” Bible students, is delinquent in exploring or accepting the truths of dispensationalism, but all sixty-six books of God's holy Word stand behind this clear understanding. It especially clarifies end times teachings wherewith Roman Catholic and Protestant theologians remain clueless.

While these covenant theologians dictate a single covenant aimed at their catholic church understanding, the Bible student can readily discern eight distinct covenants that God makes with man. Again Scofield notes them: in the Garden of Eden was an Edenic Covenant (Gen 1-3); after the fall there was an Adamic Covenant (Genesis 3:15); after the flood God made a covenant with Noah that one might call the Noahic Covenant (Genesis 9:1); God made a covenant with Abraham called an Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 15:18); God gave commandments, judgments, and ordinances to Israel (Exod 20:1-26, 21:1-24:11, 24:12-31:18) in what one might call a Mosaic Covenant (Exod 19:25) or a Law Covenant; God promised to return Israel to his promised land in what one might call a Palestinian Covenant (Deut. 30:3); God promised David's line an everlasting kingdom, one would call it a Davidic Covenant (2Sam 7:16), and Christ defines his eternally complete New Covenant (Heb 8:8). C. I. Scofield summarizes these eight covenants succinctly:

The Eight Covenants, Summary: (1) Edenic Covenant (Gen. 1:26-28, note) conditioned the life of man in innocency. (2) The Adamic Covenant (Gen. 3:14-19, note) establishes the principle of human government. (4) The Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 15:18, note) founds the nation of Israel, and confirms with specific additions, the Adamic promise of redemption. (5) The Mosaic Covenant (Exod 19:25, note) condemns all men, “for that all have sinned.” (6) The Palestinian Covenant (Deut. 28:1-30:3, note) secures the final restoration and restoration of Israel. (7) The Davidic Covenant (2Sam. 7:8-17, note) establishes the perpetuity of the Davidic family (fulfilled in Christ, Mt. 1:1; Lk. 1:31-33; Rom. 1:3), and of the Davidic kingdom, over Israel and over the whole earth; to be fulfilled in and by Christ (2Sam. 7:8-17; Zech. 12:8; Lk. 1:31-33; Acts 15:14-17; 1Cor. 15:24). (8) The New Covenant rests upon the sacrifice of Christ, and secures the eternal blessedness, under the Abrahamic Covenat (Gal. 3:13-29), of all who believe. It is absolutely unconditional, and, since no responsibility is by it committed to man, it is final and irreversible.37

Once the covenant theologian's single covenant ideology is refuted38, and that blinder is removed for a fresh look at the larger picture of scripture's revelation, one can clearly see the dispensations wherein man is tested, and one can better understand the transition periods between each dispensation. The current dispensation of grace will soon end, the Church of Jesus Christ will become the Bride of Christ when it is caught up to meet him in the air, and Christ will begin his dealings with the nations of this earth and God's chosen people Israel.

Dispensationalism clarifies distinct periods of time wherein God's rules for, or dealings with, mankind change, and understanding the upcoming transition to the promised Kingdom age clarifies the premillennial, pretribulation rapture of the church. The Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant, and Reformed “religions” have no clear end-time doctrine, but they are united in their hatred for the doctrine of dispensationalism and the premillennial, pretribulation rapture of the Church. These Bible doctrines completely confound their replacement and covenant theology.

Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant naysayers of the premillennial, pretribulational rapture of the Church and the dispensational teachings of Scripture in general, suppose that John Nelson Darby founded these things and that they are heretical. They say, “In 1859, John Nelson Darby first arrived in the United States with his doctrines of pretrib and dispensationalism.39 Dispensationalism destroys their three gods: replacement theology, covenant theology, and the catholic church. And dispensationalism systematically considers the upcoming end of the age of grace, and the transition to the kingdom age wherein Christ shall sit on the literal throne of David in the literal city of Jerusalem. These things are contrary to the teachings of Rome, errant teachings, that are still routed deep in Protestant and Reformed theology.

Much more needs to be said about these dispensations. In this work on anthropology, the doctrine of man, it is necessary to be systematically aware of their presence in the big picture. Mankind is given thorough and complete testing and opportunity in seven distinct phases, covering seven thousand years, and is repeatedly found lacking in each stewardship and dispensation. Dispensationalism is key to comprehending the larger picture of all of Scripture.

An understanding of dispensations is best introduced starting in the book of Genesis. So is an understanding of God, an understanding of man, and an understanding of redemption. But presuming some understanding of those three, let us focus on the very first dispensation, which is often called “Innocence.” Most simply, a dispensation is a period of time where stewardship is tested.

The First Dispensation – Innocence

God placed man in the Garden of Eden with a specific requirement of obedience. He was left in that testing for a period of time to “see” how he would fare. He fared poorly, and was consequently removed from the Garden. There were consequences for his failure and that period of testing, for all mankind, was abruptly ended. Now a new set of guidelines must be determined, a new testing of mankind would be pursued.

In that scenario there is a general set of guidelines which define a dispensation (Greek - oikonomiaoikonomia translated in English “dispensation,” four times and “stewardship,” three times). It is defined in the lexicon, the management, oversight, or administration of a household or of other property- usually owned by another. A dispensation contains 1) a set of rules, guidelines or expectations given by God, 2) a period of time wherein man is tried or tested under the guidelines, and 3) a distinct ending of the testing period wherein (it shall be seen as the pattern develops) man fails to live up to the guideline. The word dispensation is used four times in the Holy Bible (1Cor 9:17, Eph 1:10, 3:2, and Col 1:25). Additionally it is translated stewardship three times (Luke 16:2, 3, 4). The understanding of stewardship might better refine what a dispensation is because as a steward one is left in charge of what belongs to another, there is a period of time where they are accountable, and there is a definite ending wherein “the Lord of the vineyard” returns (cf Matt 21:33-46). The first dispensation, innocence in the Garden of Eden, illustrates well these three concepts of a dispensation.

The Second Dispensation – Conscience

What were the rules after man was removed from the Garden of Eden? C.I. Scofield labeled the second dispensation “Conscience.” Therein man did what was right in his own mind. In the dispensation of conscience the first born man became the first first-degree murderer. Note particularly in that murder report that man was not to take vengeance or retribution on Cain for his act of murder. Instead man had to answer for himself before a Holy God. Note also that a blood sacrifice was required in this age of conscience. Even if the learned scholar cannot find it in Genesis chapter four, the Bible believer knows the principle well from Hebrews 9:22, “And almost all things are by law purged with blood; and without the shedding of blood is no remission (of sin).”

How did this dispensation of conscience end?

And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart (Gen 6:5-6).

The flood brought the second dispensation to an expedient end. A new dispensation would now begin.

The Third Dispensation – Government

When man's conscience before God was unable to keep him from evil, God installed a dispensation wherein man was accountable to man to curb him from evil. C.I. Scofield labeled the third dispensation “Government.” Human government has three primary responsibilities in this endeavor, 1) to promote the good, 2) to punish the bad, and 3) to protect the innocent. These primary functions of a government are carried to our current day. It is intended to keep a restraint on man's depravity, iniquity and evil. It finds its root and basis in God's command,

And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man (Gen 9:5-6).

Of course much more could be said about this dispensation, but consider that it did have other provisions, like shortened life spans, the eating of meat, and its tower of Babble consequence (Gen 6:3, 9:3, 11:3). Note also that this dispensation did not formally end, it just got dispersed to all the nations of the world when they dispersed with confounded languages. In that sense the role and principles of human government continue until today. Anyone can see its initial, and then repeated failures on man's part. In any event there was a failure of government to restrain man's evil and God moves on to a new trial. The first three dispensations are applicable to all of mankind. The next two are applicable to a select group, God's chosen.

The Fourth Dispensation – Promise

With the failure of nations in curbing man from iniquity God chooses to construct one particular and peculiar nation and calls Abram as the father of this chosen nation. He gives Abram profound promises and Abram believes God. C.I. Scofield labeled the fourth dispensation “Promise.” Much more could be said about this dispensation of promise but suffice it to say some of the promises were unconditional and are yet to be fulfilled, i.e. Israel will occupy all of the promised land in peace and safety. The dispensation closes with the seed of Abraham still holding the promises. They have divided into twelve tribes of Israel, but they are in bondage in Egypt.

Dispensations are divinely ordered stewardships by which God reveals himself, reveals man's depravity, and reveals his longsuffering. It becomes increasingly apparent that every stewardship testing of man ends in man's failure. The fact that there are seven such stewardship tests emphasizes that God is giving man every opportunity to do right. Yet each dispensation ends in the abject failure of man. Of all the failed dispensations, the failure under this one, Promise, may have been more providentially driven than depravity driven, but it still depicts a failure. The failed Innocence dispensation brought death, The failed Conscience dispensations brought the destroying flood, the failed Government dispensation brought babble, and the failed Promise dispensation ends in Israel's bondage. In the fifth dispensation God would lay down the law for his chosen nation Israel.

The Fifth Dispensation – Law

The promised seed of Abraham, which were to inherit God's promised land, were redeemed from bondage in Egypt and read the Law of God by God himself. This began the dispensation called Law. The children of Israel agreed to obey all the laws of God. God agreed to bless them and give them all the promised land if they did. A quick read through the book of Judges confirms that they did not, and thus he did not.

It needs to be clarified that the law was only given to the promised seed of Abraham, i.e. the twelve tribes of Israel. It was not given to Gentile nations. It was not given as a model law for Gentile nations to pattern their laws after, and it was not given as a model law for the Christians, or the pious, or the religious. It was given to keep Israel a holy and a peculiar people in all the earth (Exo 19:5, Deut 14:2, 26:18, Psalm 135:4). The severe penalties of death by stoning were given so that this holy, peculiar people could “put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear” (Deut 21:21, cf 17:17, 19:19, 22:21, 24:7).

Consternation is dolled out to Christians who do not understand the dispensations, this dispensation particularly, and this purpose of the law. First because many religionists and “Clergy40 construct some form of works salvation where they pick a few choice laws and disregard others. Second because Christians themselves are confused and troubled about God having a man stoned because he picked up sticks on a Sabbath (Num 15:32-36). And third because the world mocks the Christian because he does not know how to explain the conflict between law and grace. Such consternation is relieved when one understands the realities of the dispensation of law. It is for Israel's peculiarity and for Gentiles learning (Gal 3:24-25).

Although the law, given to God's chosen nation Israel, is not set as a model for other nations to follow there are many moral principles and civil laws which are exemplary models for other Gentile nations. Many of our US laws are based on God's laws for Israel. Our Creator's requirements for moral right and wrong are discernible. Criminal laws for murder and manslaughter, civil laws for stealing, property damage and restitution can certainly find a place in our legal systems. But the death penalty punishments and the eye for an eye consideration must be left in their context for the dispensation of law and their focus on Israel's peculiarity. All of Israel's dietary laws, ceremonial laws, and other laws designed to keep Israel a peculiar people must be kept in their proper context, in order to rightly divide the Word of Truth.

And so Israel was given a myriad of laws to keep her a holy people, a peculiar people, and a chosen nation of God. Israel failed, but God's promises remain centered on his chosen people. After her chastisements only one tribe remained. The Hebrews are now called Jews, because the only tribe left in Israel at the coming of her Messiah was Judah. The only begotten Son of God came as the Lion of the tribe of Judah, to be the king of the Jews. But after being under law for fifteen hundred years (BC 1492 – 30 AD) the lawyers, scribes and Pharisees of the Jews rejected their king. Indeed they had the Romans crucify him under Roman law fulfilling many Bible prophecies about the Messiah (Greek Christ).

Although the Jews rejected Jesus as their Messiah and King, their King did not reject them. The promise of God is emphatic, the Christ will sit on the throne of David and rule and reign the twelve tribes of Israel as he said. But after they rejected him as their king, he goes to the Gentiles, and temporarily the Gentiles become his people. That makes for a separate and distinct dispensation, the dispensation of grace, the age of the church.

The Sixth Dispensation – Grace and Truth

Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof” (Matt 21:43).... “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17).

In the sixth dispensation the promises that were made to the Jews are temporarily set aside and God's grace was extended to all people. “For by grace are ye saved through faith” (Eph 2:8a) is the hallmark of this dispensation. The salvation available in this dispensation differs from any other: individual's are Converted – Justified – Quickened – Indwelt – and Immersed-in-Christ. They are consequently sealed by the Holy Spirit of God and that new-birth, salvation, conversion, cannot be undone. It has been said, “In the Old Testament God made a temple for the people, in the New Testament God makes a people for his temple41. A whole volume of this systematic theology deals with soteriology. Suffice it to say here that it has never been easier for man to be in a right relationship with his Creator, Jehovah God, and yet this dispensation of Grace and Truth (John 1:17) is destined to end “as it was in the days of Noe,... as it was in the days of Lot...” (Luke 17:26, 28).

The dispensation of grace will come to an end, and it will end in a failure of mankind. It is man's failure in accepting God's simple plan of salvation (Heb 2:3). The ending of the sixth dispensation and the beginning of the seventh and final dispensation is really the beginning of a Biblical eschatology. The doctrine of last things includes the closing of the Church age, or the dispensation of Grace and Truth, and the ushering in of the last dispensation.

The Seventh Dispensation – The Kingdom

And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end” (Luke 1:31-33). “And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever” (Rev 11:15). “And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS” (Rev 19:16).

It has been resoundingly promised that the Jewish Messiah (Greek Christ) would be the King of the Jews, i.e. the King of Israel, who sits on the throne of David. That fact is hated by Satan and refuted with tenacity by the Roman Church and her children. The despise of that fact has freely flowed into the doctrine of the Roman reformers. The persistence of the denial has caused the rejection of all dispensational teaching in the wide gate and broad path of Christendom. That broad path is called “supersessionism” and it is unfortunate that so many Baptists are ignorant of its devices.

A study of Biblical eschatology will center on the fact that this kingdom will be ushered in at the second advent of Christ. It will last for the thousand years that Christ promised in Revelation chapter twenty, so it is called the “Millennial Kingdom.” It will be preceded by a judgment of the nations which will end “the times of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24) and be called the seven year tribulation and the seventieth week of Daniel (Dan 9:24). This Great Tribulation has 144 thousand, from the twelve tribes of Israel, preaching the gospel. It will not be the Church preaching the gospel during this seven year transition period, it will be these 144 thousand virgin male followers of the Lamb (Rev 14:4). The Church is removed in a pretribulation rapture, else they would be in competition with the 144 thousand Jews. Again the whole key to understanding “the things which shall be hereafter” requires that one believe in the Millennial Reign of Christ as the seventh dispensation of the Holy Bible.

But even the Kingdom age, where Christ physically rules and reigns over the whole world, ends with an insurrection . That insurgence is short lived and mankind steps off into eternity and streets of gold. This short survey of the seven dispensations builds the framework for the study the stewardships of man in anthropology, the study of the church age in ecclesiology, and the study of last things in eschatology. Christendom's many misunderstandings of the Bible and its end times comes from those who have rejected dispensationalism and embraced supersessionism, i.e. Replacement Theology, and Covenant Theology. Be careful to rightly divide the Word of Truth in these areas, and dispensationalism is key to the divisions.

Chapter 6 – Critique of Other Systematic Theology – Anthropologies

Critiques of some other systematic theology anthropology works are taken directly from the authors Advanced Systematic Theology II TH802 Written Report, A Written Report Presented to the Faculty of Louisiana Baptist University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Doctorate of Philosophy in Theological Studies,” wherein Dr. Chafer's six volumes of “Systematic Theology” was the text assigned for analysis and comparison to other theology works. The critiques are at times harsh and often pointed but are not intended to discredit in any way the genius of Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871-1952), founder and first president of Dallas Theological Seminary, the genius of Charles Hodge (1797-1878), a Presbyterian Minister and Princeton theologian called “the father of the printed systematic theology,” or the genius of Augustus H. Strong (1836-1921), an American Baptist Pastor and president of Rochester Theological Seminary. Each of their magnum opus, “Systematic Theology” works embody the best of the theological reflection and thought in their generations.

Critique of Chafer's Anthropology

Critique of Chafer's Chap XI & XII Introduction to Anthropology (125-129) & The Origin of Man (130-159)42

If Dr. Chafer had made his last paragraph his first paragraph he could have cut out fourteen pages of add-nausea. None of this chapter recites God's aspect, and actually represses God's revelation about the origin of man. It is apologetic to the evolutionist, apologetic to the humanist, apologetic to the philosopher; and it is apologetic to the archeologist and the geologist; for crying out loud, it is even apologetic to the philologist,43 because that philologist, the historical linguist, “knows” it has taken a hundred thousand years to evolve the human language to where it is today!

There is a need for apologetics and some small amount of apologetic might find its way into a systematic theology, but it should not be the focus of a systematic theology in any arena, and especially not as concerning the origins of man. Dr. Chafer is writing a text that will appeal to 70+ denominations, all of which Dallas Theological Seminary strives to appease and accommodate. Here he does it well, by saying nothing of significance in a chapter that should be very fundamental, very straightforward and very enlightening.

The whole flavor of a neoevangelical readily seeps from Dr. Chafer's chapter on the origin of man. The series of Bible conferences springing from Niagara, New York at the close of the 19th century (1833-1897) brought both Fundamentalism and Biblical Dispensationalism into the lime light in America. The Fundamentalist became known for separating, holding anti-denominational (independent autonomous local churches), anticlerical (no clergy) and anti-creedal (no creed but the Bible) stances and defending five fundamentals of faith.44 Any departure from a fundamental tenant would constitute apostasy and result in separation. There was a distinct movement away from such staunch separation, neoevangelicals proposed that the apostate and unbelieving cultures must be constructively engaged. Rather than publicly confronting Church apostasy and separating from it, the neoevangelical advanced repairing it with inclusiveness. They supposed that social acceptance and intellectual respectability would be more effective on the perverse generation in need of correction. Fundamentalists soon dubbed them as the neoevangelicals.45

Dr. Chafer is wholly neoevangelical and his writing about the origins of man strives for intellectual respectability and social acceptance in a perverse world of infidelity and Church apostasy. Dallas Theological Seminary is founded on such neoevangelical principle and is, thus, pandering to 70+ denominations in its outreach. Consequently they must be very careful, never confrontational, in their declaration of truth, which never reaches a state implied in the term declaration. A true Baptist is a fundamentalist, even if they retired the phrase, and a true Baptist need not exercise such careful avoidance of confrontation.

Louisiana Baptist Theological Seminary, like so many Baptist seminaries that started out right, is on the brink. It may at any moment forsake its Baptist fundamental and separatist heritage and embrace intellectual elitism, wherein it begins an irrecoverable slide down the steep slope of neoevangelicalism. Its assignment of a thoroughly neoevangelical systematic theology in its theological studies is an indicator of its inclination. Its disclaimer, that LBTS does not endorse the entire content of every text book used, cannot disengage this Baptist theological seminary from that dangerous slippery slope. Forces at play in its desire for intellectual respectability have already stepped over the brink and threaten to drag (or have indeed already dragged) the whole university and seminary over an irrecoverable line. Neoevangelicalism has swallowed the majority of Baptist Universities and all previous Baptist Seminaries. Jesus' warning in Matthew 7 has application for institutions as well as for the souls of men: “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” In a university sense, few there be that stay on a straight, fundamental, Baptist way. LBTS shows signs of veering from the straight, narrow way.

Dr. Chafer's neoevangelicalism aside, his “introduction to anthropology” and his “origin of man” cannot hold a candle to Baptist theologian Emery H. Bancroft's Elemental Theology,46 Doctrinal and conservative, Bancroft's work is adequately positive completely Biblical and very fundamental. His first sentence on creation contains a negative lead in “There is no trustworthy evidence that man came from beneath as a product of life forces or potencies of the material universe.”47 Bancroft, thus presents the fact of creation rather than the theory of creation. The latter track is Chafer's neoevangelical approach and mimics Augustus Strong's previous approach.48 Strong published prior to the birth of fundamentalism and the onslaught of neoevangelicalism, but his flavor is in general neoevangelical, i.e. tiptoeing through apostasy, being careful not to ruffle any apostate or evolutionist's feathers. Bancroft makes no apology for the truth, and presents a clearly separatist flavor of the fundamentalist. His work, however, is closer to a Bible Doctrines work than a Systematic Theology work. This seems to be the state of all Baptist theology efforts. A truly Biblical, i.e. Baptist, systematic theology is still lacking in publication. If such an effort would be undertaken it would be more than Emery H. Bancroft included in his 1932, Elemental Theology. It is indeed, most exceptional, but alas elemental, rather than systematic. To extend Bancroft's work from a 1932 Elemental effort to A Systematic Theology for the 21st Century, one which overpowers the neoevangelical works of Chafer and Geisler, one could start with Bancroft's excellent doctrines format and add the pertinent systematic endeavors (see this authors Prolegomena for a better description of that challenge).

The basic outline for a Systematic Theologies Anthropology section might start with a robustness found in Bancroft's: The Doctrine of Man (Anthropology).49 That outline is recited below:

I. Creation

A. The Fact of Creation

i. Mans Creation Decreed

ii. Mans Creation Declared

B. The Method of Creation

i. Negatively Considered

ii. Positively Considered

II. Original Condition

A. Possessed the Image of God

i. Does not denote physical likeness

ii. May mean a formal likeness, a likeness in form

iii. It could refer to a triune likeness- tripartite being, vs Triune Being

iv. It doubtless includes the personal image

v. It must involve endless being with which God has endowed man

vi. It certainly means intellectual and moral likeness:

B. Possessed Intellectual Faculties

C. Possessed a Holy Moral Nature

III. Probation

A. The Meaning of Probation

B. The Fact of Probation

C. The Period of Probation

IV. The Fall

A. The Fact of the Fall

B. The Manner of the Fall

i. The Tempter

ii. The Temptation

a) Woman, unprotected and near the forbidden

b) Insinuating question implied doubt of God's Word

c) Woman replying to and parleying with the slanderer

d) Woman tampering with the Word of God

e) Serpent's open denial of punishment for sin and accusing God of lying, selfishness, jealousy, degrading and lording over.

f) Woman believing the tempter lust of eye, lust of flesh, pride of life

g) Obeying the tempter

h) Becoming a tempter to her husband who yielded undeceived.

C. The Results of the Fall

i. To Adam and Eve in particular

a) Consciousness of nakedness and sense of shame

b) A craven fear of God

c) Expulsion from the garden

ii. To the race in general

a) Ground cursed to not yield good alone

b) Sorrow and pain to woman in childbearing

c) All men are sinners and resting under condemnation

d) Physical and spiritual death and threatened penalty of eternal death

e) Unredeemed men are in helpless captivity to sin and Satan

Depicting the difference in a Biblical doctrine work and a Biblical systematic theology work is the necessary work of a Prolegomena. That effort is begun in the Prolegomena for the 21st Century by this author. Dr. John F. Walwoord, who succeeded Dr. Chafer as President of Dallas Theological Seminary, described Dr. Chafer's Systematic Theology as “without question an epoch in the history of Christian Doctrine... a complete and unabridged Systematic Theology.”50 This author disagrees with that assessment and contends that a truly Biblical systematic theology is still want to be published.

Critique of Chafers Material/Immaterial Part of Man

A Critique of Chafer's Chap XIII-XIV The Material / Immaterial Part of Man (144-197)51

Lewis Sperry Chafer's poor coverage of mans origin and inadequate organization of his anthropology section takes a turn for the worse in this chapter. Infidel, Philosopher, and Roman Catholic have decreed that man is made up of a material part and an immaterial part; God's revelation makes no such simplistic distinction. If man “made in the image and likeness of God” means anything, and if trinity means anything, then man is more than material and immaterial, he is body, soul, and spirit. The Roman Catholic doctrine that man has only a material part to be dealt with and an immaterial part to be considered separately, has overwhelmed Chafer's neoevangelical leanings. His Systematic Theology has now become a book of Roman Catholic doctrine.

Chafer's propensity to teach Roman Catholic Doctrine in these two chapters makes this section all the more feckless. How the human body actually produces an immaterial part, traducian theory, various elements, capacities and faculties of an immaterial part of man carries such insignificance that it hardly matters that his three key sources are the Encyclopedia Britannica,52 Presbyterian Theologian Hodge53 and Presbyterian Theologian Shedd.54 The whole differentiation and characterization of this artificial “material and immaterial parts of man” is extra-Biblical. Chafer is taking neoevangelicalism even further than it is want to go.

Critique of Chafer's State of Innocence and Fall

Critique of Chafer's Chap XV The State of Innocence (198-214).55

It does not bode well for a Systematic Theology being systematic or theology when Lewis Sperry Chafer starts his chapter “The State of Innocence” with a philosophical poem by Hollands greatest 17th century poet. Once again Dr. Chafer is allowing his quest for scholarly philosophy to trump his communication of truth. His approach does not herein improve.

A single sentence from his section, “The Responsibility of the First Man” reveals, again, that Chafer's work is wholly unworthy. That sentence, “That the Christian may walk and talk with God, that the guiding and teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit is vouchsafed to him, and that the enabling power to realize God's perfect will and plan is freely bestowed, illustrated, to some measure, the high privilege and responsibility of the first man when no cloud intervened between his Creator and himself.”56 Sixty such words of brazen run on passivity, might be found somewhere in poor English prose, but may it never be found in a Systematic Theology book. Our subject is complicated enough, the prose we use must be riddled with simplicity, not with gobbledygook. But Chafer does get worse.

From this point on in his diatribe of verbiage Dr. Chafer makes his whole focus, not the Biblical representation of the state of innocence, as would be proper, but on those who consider the whole book of Genesis allegorical fiction. Certainly there is a whole tribe of Evangelicals who have a leaning toward such infidels, but a Systematic Theology which has as its sole authority the infallible, inerrant, plenary, verbally inspired word of God, has little cause to address such an audience. In such an exorbitant waste Dr. Chafer has frittered away another fourteen pages of his six volumes of work.

Critique of Chafer's Chap XVI The Fall (215-223)

There is little purpose in reading Chafer's wordy opinion on the fall of man. One need only take note that he first sites Milton's 'Paradise Lost', followed by the Presbyterian, Dr. Shedd, followed by the Westminster Confession. The overbearing error of all of this is addressed in the authors Prolegomena. It details how theologians with a theology in their heart have failed to follow a basic systematic methodology to get that theology onto paper systematically. Here Chafer does exactly what is condemned in that essay. He uses a scientific method wherein he hypothesizes about the fall of man, then experiments a path through multiple ancient opinions to bring a hypothesis up to theory, and using the same empirical process, to bring theory up to “gospel truth.”

Theology is not a science, and in treating it as such, Dr. Chafer abandons the inerrant, infallible, plenary, verbally inspired Holy Bible as his sole source of truth about the fall of man. He follows the outline of Charles Hodge. He follows the scheme of Augustus Strong. Both equally failed on this same level. It is curious that Geisler57, a whole generation removed from the neoevangelical start up that engulfed Chafer, does no less. His genius in organizing and communicating his neoevangelical theology in one volume (1680 pages) dwarfs Dr. Chafer's effort in six volumes. (2,700+ pages!) But alas, Norman Geisler has the same failure. These Theologians considered theology a science, and expected if they could “lasso” everything that was ever believed about God, i.e. here the Fall of Man, they would be able to draw the noose tight enough to end up with all the truth and nothing but the truth. Unfortunately this method, somewhat effective for science perhaps, is wholly inadequate for theology. In theology, at the start, there is an inerrant, infallible plenary, verbally inspired Holy Bible which is the sole source for the gospel truth. Such does not fit into the scientific method in any form.

Dr. Chafer has “lassoed” a great many sources to frame up his “theory” about the fall of man; unfortunately his noble effort is not really Biblical in nature or in analysis. This unfortunate analysis seems applicable to all of Chafer's Systematic Theology.

A Critique of Augustus H. Strong's 1907 Systematic Theology – Anthropology

Some has already been said about the failings of Storng's 1907 Systematic Theology, but his thoroughness and comprehensiveness in handling problems of understanding is still noteworthy. For the sake of completeness his three chapter anthropology outline is repeated below, and it illustrates such comprehensiveness. The primary problems of understanding that he addresses have to do with the misleadings of the Roman theologians that muddied theology previously, and his repeated emphasis on various theories reveals his reliance on the scientific-method to resolve the truth. The Lord Jesus Christ is Truth, and theological truth cannot be resolved via hypothesis, theories, nor scientific methods. Problems of understanding, for the Bible student and theologian, are best resolved by the simply axiom, “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it for me.” Below is Augustus H. Strong's extensive anthropology outline.

PRESENTED TO The University of Toronto a Compendium and Commonplace-Book









Table of Contents Volume II:


Chapter I. Preliminary, 465-513

I. Man a Creation of God and a Child of God, 465-476

II. Unity of the Race, 476 483

1. Argument from History, 477-478

2. Argument from Language, 478-479

3. Argument from Psychology, 479-480

4. Argument from Physiology, 480-483

III. Essential Elements of Human Nature, 483-488

1. The Dichotomous Theory, 483-484

2. The Trichotomous Theory, 484-488

IV. Origin of the Soul, 488-497

1. The Theory of Preexistence, 488-491

2. The Creatian Theory, 491-493

3. The Traducian Theory, 493-497

V. The Moral Nature of Man, 497-513

1. Conscience, 498-504

2. Will, 504-513

Chapter II. The Original State of Man, 514-532

I. Essentials of Man's Original State, 514-523

1. Natural Likeness to God, or Personality, 515-516

2. Moral Likeness to God, or Holiness, 516-523

A. The Image of God as including only Personality, 518-520

B. The Image of God as consisting simply in Man's Natural Capacity for Eeligion,520-3

II. Incidents of Man's Original State, 523-532

1. Results of Man's Possession of the Divine Image, 523-525

2. Concomitants of Man's Possession of the Divine Image, 525-527

1st. The Theory of an Original Condition of Savagery, 527-531

2nd. The Theory of Comte as to the Stages of Human Progress, 531-532

Chapter III. Sin, or Man's State of Apostasy 533-664

Section I. The Law of God, 583-549

I. Law in General, 532-536

II. The Law of God in Particular, 536-547

1. Elemental Law, 536-544

2. Positive Enactment, 544-547

III. Relation of the Law to the Grace of God, 547-549

Section II. Nature of Sin, 549-573

I. Definition of Sin, 549-559

1. Proof, 552-557

2. Inferences, 557-559

II. The Essential Principle of Sin, 559-573

1. Sin as Sensuousness, 559-563

2. Sin as Finiteness, 563-566

3. Sin as Selfishness, 566-573

Section III.. Universality of Sin, 573-582

I. Every human being who has arrived at moral consciousness has committed acts, or cherished dispositions, contrary to the Divine Law, 573-577

II. Every member of the human race, without exception, possesses a corrupted nature, which is a source of actual sin, and is itself sin, 577-582

Section IV. Origin of Sin in the Personal Act of Adam, 582-593

I. The Scriptural Account in Genesis, 582-585

1. Its General Character not Mythical or Allegorical, but Historical, 582-583

2. The Course of the Temptation, and the resulting Fall, 584-585

II. Difficulties connected with the Fall, considered as the personal Act of Adam, 585-590

1. How could a holy beiug fall ? 585-588

2. How could God justly permit Satanic Temptation ? 588-589

3. How could a Penalty so great be justly connected with Disobedience to

so slight a Command ? . . . 589-590

III. Consequences of the Fall so far as respects Adam, . . 590-593

1. Death, 590-592

A. Physical Death or the Separation of the Soul from the Body, 590-591

B. Spiritual Death, or the Separation of the Soul from God, 591-592

2. Positive and formal Exclusion from God's Presence, 592-593

Section V. Imputation of Adam's Sin to his Posterity,. . 593-637

Scripture Teaching as to Face-sin and Face-responsibility, _. 593-597

I. Theories of Imputation, 597-628

1. The Pelagian Theory, or Theory of Man's Natural Innocence, 597-601

2. The Arminian Theory, or Theory of voluntarily appropriated Depravity, 601-606

3. The New-School Theory, or Theory of uncondemnable Vitiosity, 606-612

4. The Federal Theory, or Theory of Condemnation by Covenant, 612-616

5. Theory of Mediate Imputation, or Theory of Condemnation for Depravity, 616-619

6. Augustinian Theory, or Theory of Adam's Natural Headship, 619-627

Exposition of Bom. 5 : 12-19, 625-627

Tabular View of the various Theories of Imputation, 628

II. Objections to the Augustinian Theory of Imputation, . 629-637

Section VI. Consequences of Sin to Adam's Posterity, . . 637-660

I. Depravity, 637-644

1. Depravity Partial or Total ?. 637-640

2. Ability or Inability? 640-644

II. Guilt, 644-652

1. Nature of Guilt, 644-647

2. Degrees of Guilt, 648-652

III. Penalty, 652-660

1. Idea of Penalty, 652-656

2. Actual Penalty of Sin, 656-660

Section VII. The Salvation of Infants, 660-664

A Critique of Charles Hodge's 1871 Systematic Theology – Anthropology

Some has already been said about the failings of ...

A Critique of Norman L. Geisler's 2002 Systematic Theology – Anthropology

Some has already been said about the failings of ...

Chapter 7 – Anthropology Conclusion

In a Biblical systematic theology anthropology is not “the social science that studies the origins and social relationships of human beings”58 but it is a study of all that God reveals about man in his inerrant, infallible, verbally inspired Holy Bible. That differentiates this anthropology from previous systematic theologies. Believing that God says what he means, and means what he says, allows the straight forward examination of man's origin, his existence in his state of integrity, in his state of sin and in his state of grace.

Other considerations in this anthropology involve untangling previous misconceptions that have been interwoven into theology and doctrine books. The Bible depicts seven dispensations where-in man is tested and found wanting in his stewardship. This teaching is despised and rejected by Roman, Orthodox, and Protestant teachers who hold to some form of a replacement theology and covenant theology instead of the Bible's depiction of these dispensations. This mishandling of truth and propagation of error always muddies the water. The Bible student readily finds the many covenants that God makes with man, and can readily dismiss a covenant theologians supposition that there is a single covenant wherein the catholic church circumvents God's covenant with Abraham, Israel, and David.

Further, the Bible depicts man's depravity but falls short of the “Total Depravity” held to by Presbyterians and other followers of John Calvin. Their total depravity concept also stems from the covenant theologians supposition that a catholic church becomes the new “elect of God” and replaces God's chosen people Israel. In a Biblical examination the depravity of man addresses only the natural condition of unregenerate man in regards to his moral perversion or his impairment of virtue and moral principles.

A Biblical anthropology must first accept God's Word as its source of truth, and that Word details the creation of man in God's six day creation account. There need not be a great study to undermine the atheistic supposition of evolution in a Biblical anthropology, nor a compromised idea of a gap, nor an extravagant idea about half-breed angles, all one needs is the faith to know that God says what he means and means what he says. The Bible doctrine of man is thus, relatively straight forward.

Bibliography for Anthropology

The Holy Bible.

Bancroft, Emery H., Elemental Theology, 1932, Baptist Bible Seminary, 1945, 1960, Zondervan 1977, [In 1932 Emery H. Bancroft became the first Dean of Baptist Bible Seminary, Johnson City, NY and published his text for his course Elemental Theology. In 1968 the Seminary relocated to Clark Summit PA. In 1970 this author attended Practical Bible Training School on the Johnson City campus and studied Bancroft's text. In 1999 – 2000 this author attended Baptist Bible Seminary to take Greek (NT502 and NT503) via a 3 hour commute from Hammondsport NY to Clark Summit PA, and was reintroduced to Bancroft's exceptional work.]

Cambron, Mark G. Bible Doctrines. Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House, 1954, [Independent Baptist, Professor, Tennessee Temple Bible School, 1954].

Cambron Institute, The, 35890 Maplegrove Road, Willoughby, Oh 44094

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. Dallas Seminary Press, 1948.[Lewis Sperry Chafer was an American theologian. He founded and served as the first president of Dallas Theological Seminary, and was an influential founding member of modern Christian Dispensationalism. Born: February 27, 1871, Rock Creek, Died: August 22, 1952, Seattle, Education: Oberlin College, Wheaton College. For my Doctorate of Philosophy in Theological Studies through LBTS, I was tasked to analyze all six volumes of his Systematic Theology]

Geisler, Norman L, Systematic Theology in One Volume, Bethany House, 2002, 3, 4, 5, 11 [Geisler, also a neoevangelical, sharply contrasts with Lewis Sperry Chafer in that Geisler 1) admits what he is, neoevangelical, 2) admits what he is attempting, a compilation of evangelical theologies, 3) shows superb organization and structure of thought, 4) contains depth, and 5) is a masterful communicator. This author cannot endorse all that Geisler believes to be true, but can endorse that he seems to capture all that has been believed by conservative evangelicals.]

Hodge, Charles, Systematic Theology: Volume I-IV, Charles Scribner & Company, 1871, Hardback- Grand Rapids, Mich., Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1940, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, http://www.ccel.org, public domain. [The Internet Archive www.archive.org/details/systematictheolo01hodg], [Charles Hodge, 1797-1878, Presbyterian Minister, Princeton Theologian].

Rice, Edward G., "ADVANCED SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY II TH802 WRITTEN REPORT- A Written Report Presented to the Faculty of Louisiana Baptist University, In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Doctorate of Philosophy in Theological Studies,” Dec 2013.

Strong, Augustus H., Systematic Theology:Three Volumes in 1, Philadelphia, Valley Forge PA, The Judson Press, 1907, 35th printing 1993. [Augustus H. Strong, 1836-1921, American Baptist Pastor & Theologian].

Strong, James, The Exhaustive Concordance of The Bible: Showing Every Word of the Text of the Common English Version of the Canonical Books, and Every Occurrence of Each Word in Regular Order; Together with Dictionaries of the Hebrew and Greek Words of the Original, With References to the English Words, Mao Donald Publishing Company, 1890, Public Domain [James Strong 1822-1894, accessed throughout via http://onlinebible.net. Generally known as Strong's Concordance, it is a numeric-alphabetic index of every Hebrew and Greek word translated into the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. The nomenclature <3623> indicates the 3623rd alphabetical word in his Greek Lexicon; the nomenclature <03623> indicates the 3623rd word in his Hebrew Lexicon. James Strong (1822-1894) first published “The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible” in 1890, while he was professor of exegetical theology at Drew Theological Seminary. Also see How To Use the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, https://www.therain.org/studies/strongs.html Accessed 09/26/2019].

Webster, Noah “1828 Dictionary of American English.”

1The Holy Bible.

2Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary of American English, s.v. “Anthroplolgy.”

3 ology is from the Greek meaning a word, a discourse, a doctrine, a teaching, a matter under discussion, a thing spoken of or talked about, also the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, or reasoning about. Others have limited this suffix by equating it to the English word science, which is “The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” There really is no English equivalent that can capture the depth of “ology”, it is literally to go on, and on, and on about a topic with pen, or speech, or thought.

4 Charles Hodge, “Systematic Theology”, Volume III, pg 92 of 916.

5 Dr. Mark G. Cambron, B.A., M.A., Th.B., Th.M., Th.D., D.D., L.L.D., Litt.D., was one of the foremost theologians of our times. Born in Fayetteville, Tennessee on July 31, 1911. He was born-again in 1919. It was during a Billy Sunday campaign in Chattanooga that he trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ as his personal Savior. He served for many years at Tennessee Temple College (1948-59) with Dr. Lee Roberson (1909-2007) the founder of Tennessee Temple University in 1946. Dr. Cambron served as Dean of Tennessee Temple University. From http://www.thecambroninstitute.org accessed 10/16/2013

6Mark G. Cambron, Bible Doctrines, 1954, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House, 60-69

7The Cambron Institute, 35890 Maplegrove Road, Willoughby, Oh 44094

8It is noted and reproved in the Bibliology section of this work that Dr. Cambron's Bible Doctrines book does recommend using the R.V., instead of the Holy Bible, 41 times for 54 Bile verses. This work trusts only the King James Bible for English accuracy and acknowledgment of the inerrant, infallible, verbally inspired Holy Scriptures. There is no reason in the world to trust the ecumenical translators of 1881 to render any of these verses with more accuracy than what the fifty-seven exceptional linguists did in 1611; in fact quite the opposite is true.

9 The actual Bible gives this verse as: “As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness.” There is no reason for Dr. Cambron using the ecumenical revised version which changes a “will” to a “shall”, and incorrectly translates to an incomplete sentence, “when I awake with beholding thy form.” Shame on him and the ecumenical translators.

10There is no reason in the world to trust the ecumenical translators of 1881 to render any of these verses with more accuracy than what the fifty-seven exceptional linguists did in 1611; in fact quite the opposite is true.

11Acts 24:24 “God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;”

12This author might here clarify that Christ's body went to the tomb, Christ's spirit went to his Father, and Christ's Soul went to hell, perhaps making Christ the exception to Cambron's rule.

13This author might here add Pr 20:27 “The spirit of man is the candle of the LORD, searching all the inward parts of the belly.”

14 Dr. Cambron uses the phrase “best translated” not to attack the fifty-seven expert linguist of 1611 but to convey additional meaning. It is unfortunate what ecumenical modernists did to make us rightfully gun-shy about the phrase.

15Block quote of Dr. Cambron's Bible Doctrines page 116-134 (Zondervan 155-174).

16 The reformed theologian, for example, clearly believes the genius mind of men i.e. believing the orthodoxy of Luther and Calvin, Saint Aquinas and Augustine, et al., over clear declarations of Holy Scripture; Bible correctors fit this category as well.

17Edward Rice, “God's Glory, God's Handiwork, and God's Word, The Genesis Account,” A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of Louisiana Baptist Theological Seminary, January 2017, “Chapter 12-Defiance of Science,” pg 234-248 [also published at http://www.gsbaptistchurch.com/seminary/dissertation/6day_creation_dissertation.pdf, accessed 8/15/2018]

18Neil DeGrasse Tyson, is a self-proclaimed spokesman and feigned replacement of Carl Sagan (1934-1996), the arch-atheist of the 20th century, William Maher is an American comedian, political commentator, and television host known for the HBO political talk show “Real Time with Bill Maher,” and William Sanford Nye, popularly known as Bill Nye the Science Guy, is an American science communicator, television presenter, and mechanical engineer.

19Edward G. Rice, “God's Glory, God's Handiwork, and God's Word,The Genesis Account, A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of Louisiana Baptist Theological Seminary”, January 2017, pg65, 77, 131 [http://www.gsbaptistchurch.com/seminary/dissertation/6day_creation_dissertation.pdf, accessed 8/2/2018].

20“Bible First, Volume 2, Lesson 5”, Euro Team Outreach Inc, 2013, pg 38, 47.

21C. I. Scofield, “The Scofield Reference Bible”, Oxford University Press, Inc., 1909, Gen. 1:1 note, pg 3.

22 Edward G. Rice, “God's Glory, God's Handiwork, and God's Word,The Genesis Account, A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of Louisiana Baptist Theological Seminary”, January 2017, pg 151. [http://www.gsbaptistchurch.com/seminary/dissertation/6day_creation_dissertation.pdf, accessed 8/2/2018].

23This title is derived from 1Timothy 6:20 "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:"

24Scofield, Gen. 1:3 note, pg 3.

25<08414> indicates James Strong's (1822-1894) nomenclature of “The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible” generally known as Strong's Concordance, which is a numeric-alphabetic index of every Hebrew and Greek word translated into the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. A leading zero <01> indicates it comes from Strong's Hebrew Lexicon, lacking the zero <1> indicates it came from his Greek Lexicon. Strong's Concordance was first published in 1890, while he was professor of exegetical theology at Drew Theological Seminary.

26 James Strong, “The Exhaustive Concordance of The Bible”, Mao Donald Publishing Company, Public Domain [James Strong 1822-1894].

27 Ibid., pg 776.

28 Edward G. Rice, “God's Glory, God's Handiwork, and God's Word,The Genesis Account, A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of Louisiana Baptist Theological Seminary”, January 2017, pgs 1-275. [http://www.gsbaptistchurch.com/seminary/dissertation/6day_creation_dissertation.pdf, accessed 8/2/2018].

29 C. I. Scofield, “The Scofield Reference Bible”, Oxford University Press, Inc., 1909, Gen. 1:3 note, pg 3.

30The syndics at the Council of the Synod of Dordt (1618-1619), in their deliberations over what made Reformed theology reformed, gave rise to a mnemonic: the Gospel in a TULIP — Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace and the Perseverance of the saints.

31Thornton, “Repentance”, New Haven, 1834, pg 18

32 Edward G Rice, "Reformed Theology's Reformations Are Not Producing A Biblical Systematic Theology," A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of Louisiana Baptist University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Master of Theological Studies, December 2011. [Available at www.gsbaptistchurch.com/seminary/master_thesis/thesis_reformed.html or or http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/GSBaptistChurch accessed 8/26/2018]

The Biblical Doctrine of Election and Predestination - Why a Baptist will never hold to a doctrine of Calvinism or Augustinian Predestination“, LuLu Selfpublishing, 2009. [available at http://www.gsbaptistchurch.com/elect/election_predest_man.pdf or http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/GSBaptistChurch accessed 8/26/2018]

33Thornton, “Repentance,” New Haven, 1834, pg 13, 16-17, 18, 21, 24, 26-29.

34WordWeb 8, Princeton University, 2006, s.v. Steward.

35Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary of American English, a public domain module of “theWord.net” version 5.0, 2003, s.v. Steward, Dispensation.

36Cyrus Ingerson Scofield, “The Scofield Study Bible,” 1909, pg iii.

37 C.I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible”, Oxford University Press, Inc., 1909, pg 1297-1298, s.v. Heb. 8:8 note 2.

38The error of Covenant Theology, New Covenant Theology, and Hyper-Dispensationalism are given extensive exposure in this author's “A Systematic Theology for the 21st Century – Part 09 Ecclesiology.

39From multiple sources over the author's fifty years of Bible study.

40 Recall that true Christianity has no clergy, or laity, or Nicolaitans, cf Rev 2:6, 15.

41This was a well rehearsed thought of noted evangelist Dr. Laren Dawson, who had and heard more recordings of fundamental preachers of the gospel than any other evangelist.

42Edward G. Rice, "ADVANCED SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY II TH802 WRITTEN REPORT- A Written Report Presented to the Faculty of Louisiana Baptist University, In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Doctorate of Philosophy in Theological Studies,” Dec 2013.

43Chafer, Systematic Theology Vol 2, 141.

44“The twentieth century began with a tumultuous conservative uproar over the infiltration of numerous denominations by liberalism. The severity of the situation demanded immediate action. Heretical teachings were captivating and corrupting entire churches, schools and related organizations within multiplied denominations. Therefore, a coalition of interdenominational brethren, following a number of conferences, united around the five 'fundamentals' of the faith. They were:

1. The inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture

2. The deity of Jesus Christ

3. The virgin birth of Christ

4. The substitutionary, atoning work of Christ on the cross

5. The physical resurrection and the personal bodily return of Christ to the earth.

“The adherents to these five 'fundamental' truths were naturally labeled 'fundamentalists.' Those opposing them were called 'liberals.' “The men joining together around these five points (commonly called 'the doctrine of Christ') were from varied and diversified religious backgrounds. Thus, this amalgamation of 'first generation fundamentalists' included Presbyterians, Baptists, Reformers, Reformed Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans, Congregationalists, and Wesleyan Holiness brothers. The astounding thing about the members of this interdenominational movement was their love for one another.” (Dr. Jack Van Impe, Heart Disease in Christ's Body, pp. 127-128).

45The term neoevangelical was popularized by one Harold Ockenga in 1947, neoevangelicals were then embarrassed to be called fundamentalists. (From www.theopedia.com accessed 18 Nov 2013).

46Emery H. Bancroft, Elemental Theology, 1932, Baptist Bible Seminary, 1945, 60, Zondervan 1977, 231-244.

47ibid., 231.

48Although Strong was consistently orthodox, he did use the results of modem critical scholarship more than, for example, his near Presbyterian contemporary Charles Hodge. Also, unlike Hodge, Strong was comfortable with the idea that God may have created the world through the processes of evolution. In the 1907 edition of his theology, Strong summarized his views on modern thought: "Neither evolution nor the higher criticism has any terrors to one who regards them as part of Christ's creating and education process." from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/strong accessed 2 Aug 2010

49Emery H. Bancroft, Elemental Theology, 1932, Baptist Bible Seminary, 1945, 60, Zondervan 1977, 231-244.

50Article contributed by www.walvoord.com, accessed 15 Dec 2013


52Chafer, Systematic Theology, 191,195.

53Ibid., 175.

54Ibid., 177.


56Ibid., 202.

57Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology in One Volume, Bethany House, 2002, 3, 4, 5, 11

58 WordWeb 8, Princeton University, 2006, s.v. “anthropology”.