Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

The Gap theory GARBAGE


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Do you know any pastor who has every single doctrine and preference 100% correct?
I don't.  

NOBODY has EVERYTHING correct.  We are all still sinners, and we are all prone to error.  
Oliver Greene taught the gap. 
John R. Rice endorsed the NASB.  
John R. Rice's reference Bible was not a pure KJV.  
This is not to disparage either of those men, because they both did great good in their ministries!  But they were wrong on THOSE points.
So let's call a person out on their errors, and be edified by them where they are right.  
There are many people who teach the gap who have tremendous insight into Scripture on many points, and we can all be edified by them.  Why toss them out over the gap?  To me that is total nonsense.  

Now if it is the case as Mike made, then sure.  Or if they get off into "weirdology" fine.  But if the core of their teaching and preaching is in the main sound, good, and edifying, then I believe it is a bit reactionary to toss ALL pro-gappers out.  

So I think there is a distinction to be made between essential doctrine, and non-essential doctrine.  That is, doctrine that we cannot budge on at all, then other doctrines where we can respect each other where we don't agree.  

IMO, since the Gap does not affect major doctrine, I would classify it as non-essential.  

Do as you please!  I see no reason to divide over the issue.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Steve Schwenke said:

Do you know any pastor who has every single doctrine and preference 100% correct?
I don't.  

NOBODY has EVERYTHING correct.  We are all still sinners, and we are all prone to error.  
Oliver Greene taught the gap. 
John R. Rice endorsed the NASB.  
John R. Rice's reference Bible was not a pure KJV.  
This is not to disparage either of those men, because they both did great good in their ministries!  But they were wrong on THOSE points.
So let's call a person out on their errors, and be edified by them where they are right.  
There are many people who teach the gap who have tremendous insight into Scripture on many points, and we can all be edified by them.  Why toss them out over the gap?  To me that is total nonsense.  

Now if it is the case as Mike made, then sure.  Or if they get off into "weirdology" fine.  But if the core of their teaching and preaching is in the main sound, good, and edifying, then I believe it is a bit reactionary to toss ALL pro-gappers out.  

So I think there is a distinction to be made between essential doctrine, and non-essential doctrine.  That is, doctrine that we cannot budge on at all, then other doctrines where we can respect each other where we don't agree.  

IMO, since the Gap does not affect major doctrine, I would classify it as non-essential.  

Do as you please!  I see no reason to divide over the issue.

 

If someone through a particular point of view denies the accuracy of the literal reading of the Word of God, are they not opening up the possibility for other parts of the bible to be questioned?

Is there not a danger in that should be considered?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
2 hours ago, Steve Schwenke said:

Mike, I am not going to debate you on the gap.  The point I was trying to make was this.  All of your objections have been noted.  But do the people who are teaching the gap teaching the things you are objecting to?  If they are not teaching the things you are objecting to, then the doctrine has NOT been affected.
I do not know any IFB's who believe the Gap to teach anything about evolution, or deny the 6 literal days of creation as listed in Genesis 1.  They simply move it as a re-creation.  the time element before the Gap is completely irrelevant to the pro-gappers.  
In short, your objections are based on things that are NOT being taught by the pro-gappers - at least not by the IFB version of it.  
They still believe in the distinction between Israel, the church, the OT, the NT, the sufficiency of the Cross, the Blood of Christ, Heaven, Hell, New Heaven, New Earth, etc. etc. etc.

 

Mind you, Steve, I am not seeking to be hostile toward you-I understand what you're saying, I'm just saying that to hold to a gap, unless they are doing it seriously ignorantly, they MUST deny the very words of God.

. Ex 20:11-"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it"

Ex 31:17- "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed"

By these two verses it is clear that everything, including the heaven (before the gap, including all there was within them, both heaven, AND the earth) in six days. This cannot allow for anything else but those six days since days one and two have to be split by millions of years. The very foundation of time and how it is kept is based on six literal days. It also strives against the very concept of the origins of sin and death. Those are extremely serious things and they cannot be ignored by anyone who holds to a gap. That's all I'm saying-I believe it is very dangerous.

   
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Mike and Dave
i understand your objections.  However, those who hold to the gap - at least in the IFB world - do not deny a literal 6-day re-creation as listed in Genesis 3.  This comes down to a matter of interpretation.  They believe every word literally.   To say otherwise is disingenuous.  What you are saying is that if they don't agree with you, then they are not Biblical literalists.  This is not true.  If it were true, then we would be able to find major doctrinal problems across the board in their teachings.  If they were not Biblical literalists, then they not only take liberties in Genesis 1, they would also take liberties throughout the Bible.  They don't. 

There is no slippery slope here, so far as I can see.

Blessings!
 

In Christ,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
21 hours ago, swathdiver said:

divorced pastors

Hey, I believe ALL pastors should be divorced  -----------  divorced from self-will, divorced from popular opinion, and the list goes on and on and on....

 

Like I tell my kids sometimes -- I won't say that I couldn't help posting it, I could have but choose not to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Interesting.

I don't believe Lucifer was ever the name of the Devil. But the 'story' of Lucifer can only be proven through the so-called gap theory.

That is false teaching. And without it I know of no way someone can teach the Lucifer 'story', which happens to lift the Devil much higher than he should ever have been lifted, without believing in a gap.

Edited by Genevanpreacher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
5 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Interesting.

I don't believe Lucifer was ever the name of the Devil. But the 'story' of Lucifer can only be proven through the so-called gap theory.

That is false teaching. And without it I know of no way someone can teach the Lucifer 'story', which happens to lift the Devil much higher than he should ever have been lifted, without believing in a gap.

No Gap here GP:

 Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 

 Lu 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

If we take God at his word it doesn't take any stretch of the imagination to see that Lucifer and Satan are one and the same. Nor does it require any Gap theory to clearly understand the plain teaching of Scripture.

The only difference we see is that his name was changed from Lucifer when his abode was heaven, to Satan when he was cast down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Actually Lucifer was the name of Venus back then. No connection to Satan at all.

Reading the context of those verses really brings about much more than the tradition commonly taught in Baptist circles. The power that someone got in making up 'prophecies' about the devil...Wow!

Don't know why preachers teach it as fact, that the devil was a 'good guy' before he was a bad angel, is way beyond me.

The Lord Jesus said he was a liar from the very beginning. How does that affect the story?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

And "Lucifer" being "in the garden of God" etc. ties together with "the Serpent", which describes "Satan", "the Devil" etc. God made him perfect, just like He did Adam, but he "despised dominion" and left his FIRST ESTATE (book of Jude)which ties right back to Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14. That "first estate" was perfection and submission: But the "Devil" wanted to be the supreme ruler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

In replying to GP's assertion that Satan was never Lucifer I have inadvertently drawn this thread off topic. If we need to continue this subject I suggest we take it to another thread.

Sorry folks my mistake.  :11backtotopic:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

In replying to GP's assertion that Satan was never Lucifer I have inadvertently drawn this thread off topic. If we need to continue this subject I suggest we take it to another thread.

Sorry folks my mistake.  :11backtotopic:

This is exactly why the gap theory is trash.

No gap. No Lucifer story. No false trash that there was a 'honest' and 'pure' creature who was a satan after he chose to become 'like God'.

I know all the references to the Lucifer mumbo jumbo, and find it such a funny thing that men of God will support such a thing by taking verses out of context and spread it far and wide by 'honoring' Satan so much that they will 'stick' him in a prophecy.

And when you take God's word as it reads in the text, you will find that Lucifer was used as an example of how far Nebuchadnezzar had lifted himself up - as a man - not as the devil. The rest of the verses in Isaiah that are around that ONE reference to something known as Lucifer (Venus), [which is what men called the star that rises up before the Sun, back in the 1500's and 1600's], you see a fallen MAN. Never a fallen angel.

The gap theory has quite the hold here on OB doesn't it? To believe an angel called Lucifer decided to go contrary to it's perfect creation is a myth. 

Reference to Jesus saying he saw Satan fall from heaven? Come on guys. He was not referring to Lucifer at all. Read the context. Don't give such a made up story such credit. Nor the devil such credit. He doesn't require the same level of prophetic utterence that our Lord gets in the OT scriptures. Nor does he deserve it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

....No Lucifer story. No false trash that there was a 'honest' and 'pure' creature who was a satan after he chose to become 'like God'.

I know all the references to the Lucifer mumbo jumbo, and find it such a funny thing that men of God will support such a thing by taking verses out of context and spread it far and wide by 'honoring' Satan so much that they will 'stick' him in a prophecy.

And when you take God's word as it reads in the text, you will find that Lucifer was used as an example of how far Nebuchadnezzar had lifted himself up - as a man - not as the devil. The rest of the verses in Isaiah that are around that ONE reference to something known as Lucifer (Venus), [which is what men called the star that rises up before the Sun, back in the 1500's and 1600's], you see a fallen MAN. Never a fallen angel.

...To believe an angel called Lucifer decided to go contrary to it's perfect creation is a myth. 

Reference to Jesus saying he saw Satan fall from heaven? Come on guys. He was not referring to Lucifer at all. Read the context. Don't give such a made up story such credit. Nor the devil such credit. He doesn't require the same level of prophetic utterence that our Lord gets in the OT scriptures. Nor does he deserve it.

These passages do not need a gap in order to refer to Satan and human kings at the same time. The fall of the devil was not in some mystical gap period but is synonymous with the judgement of the serpent in Genesis 3:14. Satan was not cursed until after he tempted Eve in the garden. Everything by God was still very good until the moment Satan put it upon himself to question God's stated commands and go against his authorities.

The Isaiah passage was a proverb. It took things that were well known about the spiritual ruler of evil and applied them to his puppet the human king. Isaiah and others are often told and given burdens to speak in parables and proverbs in order to show to those who cared the hidden spiritual influence controlling the physical world. We also see that the Apostle John refers to Babylon  as being is the human symbol of Satan's control on earth and much of the things he refers to in Revelation are alluding back to the OT Prophets. Putting aside the argument on the word "Lucifer," it is clear that God is alluding to the devil and applying it to the Babylonian King.

God tells Palestina not to rejoice after the power of the human Babylonian king is taken away because the nation will once again come against them and we see that happening in Revelation where it is clear Satan is the spiritual ruler of that Kingdom; guiding them through out the ages.

Isaiah 14:4 that thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!

Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Isaiah 14:29 Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent’s root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent.

Revelation 12:9-10 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

Revelation 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

Revelation 20:2-3 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, 3 and cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

Edited by John Young
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
9 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Don't know why preachers teach it as fact, that the devil was a 'good guy' before he was a bad angel, is way beyond me.

 

8 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Do you believe that God created Satan as the evil, lying, murdering devil that we know?

 

Do you? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...