Was Clarence Larkin a liberal or simply confused?

Well, here's what I would like to know. Who among us can prove beyond all doubt, as in having been present at Genesis 1 that the chaotic earth theory is wrong? There could be a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 or there could not be. None of us were around to know. God does. If someone was around during Genesis 1:1 at the very beginning, please do us all a favor & post a link to your digital pic of the events. Thank you very much.

Humphh! What difference does it make, anyway. Is anybody going to be edified from this discussion? Quite doubtful.

 

Brother Bartholomew, please forgive for my error. My intention was to quote part of your post and comment on it but it seems I clicked the edit button instead of the quote button. I did not purposely remove any of your post and I did not save a copy of it. I am very sorry.
Murph

I believe the gap theory is false; but it is not liberal. Those who believe in the gap theory generally do so because they want to hold on to the literal creation account. They do not generally claim that it is a myth; nor that God was 'accommodating' his language to 'simple' men; nor that the 'six days' are allegorical; but simply assert that some unspecified amount of time ellapsed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

Bart notice my post I said I would consider this a liberal view and even after your reply I still do. I appreciate your opinion that people have held this view in an attempt to hold a literal 6 day creation but that in itself is describing their belief as liberal. A liberal in my view is one who looks at the literal statement of scripture and instead of accepting it they fabricate an alternative understanding of the scripture. The Bible says 6 days so what is wrong with that?
Murph </font>[/QUOTE]

 

That, my Friend, should go into the classic quotes of all time! Good One! Excellent!

 

Instead of all this mud slinging, please do us a favor & post a link to this statement by Larkin that a person is "saved by faith plus works."

Perhaps you are referring to a chapter about works of the believer which is referring to the Bema Seat, nothing to do with salvation.

[ May 05, 2003, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: SheEagle9/11 ]

 

She Eagle since none of us were around to know let's just take the Bible at face value and since it doesn't mention a "gap" let's just accept that there was not one. Mr. larking certainly has a right to his views as do we all but we will all have to share those views with grace.
Murph

 

She Eagle since none of us were around to know let's just take the Bible at face value and since it doesn't mention a "gap" let's just accept that there was not one. Mr. larking certainly has a right to his views as do we all but we will all have to share those views with grace.
Murph </font>[/QUOTE]NO! let's DON'T accept there was not a GAP between Verses 1 and 2, or are you saying Clarence Larkin has a right to a different view and we don't?

You can't prove there wasn't a gap, and I can't prove there was, so how is it you are the one to dictate that we are to accept there wasn't? Explain all the scientific evidences that substanciate your view , WITHOUT BIAS, only facts.

Are you, Sir, denying the Preisthood of the Believer as his right under the guidelines of the Baptist Distinctives?

 

This thread is getting more & more weird by the moment.

Murph, God Bless You. Your poor fingers on these edit buttons must be getting tired.

Edified, I'm not.

I don't care about the gap or ungap.

I don't care who believes Mr. Larkin was a man of God or who believes if he was a false teacher.

I don't even care if anybody else is listening for the trumpet.

I just know I am.

So, I'm going to bed. Good night, all. Tomorrow is another day.

 

NO! let's DON'T accept there was not a GAP between Verses 1 and 2, or are you saying Clarence Larkin has a right to a different view and we don't?


Istherenotacause since you liked my comment so much I do wish you would have read the last line and applied it to your posting. "we will all have to share those views with grace." As you have shown very little grace IMO I do wish you would try it. I would also appreciate it if you would read my post again and take note that I have not told anyone how they must view the gap theory but simply I was saying that since no evidence to the contrary existed that we should take the Bibles word on it. I especially liked your demand that I produce scientific evidence to support my view, I will let you work from that end and I will stick with the Bible.
Murph

 

She Eagle you always bless my heart, thank you and have a good nights sleep.
It is past my bedtime as well but there needs to be a extremely loud snorer icon for me.
Murph

 

O.K. Murphy, but I think we missed something here;like first of all I may make a statement that you or anyone might take wrong, (just like you've said I have done you). Now, where are these "proofs" from your Bible that refute the Gap theory? I have a Bible as well and I believe there is enough there to suggest the Gap just as much as there's enough to refute it, so there's not much of a debate here, only discussion.

***sarcasm removed****A situation occured many years ago between Brother Billy Goolsby and Brother Larry Raynes over the disagreement of the Gap, so are we going to allow this to continue to divide believers, I know some are so dogmatic about it that they've written into their church constitutions that absolutely no reference will be made in any preaching or teaching on behalf of the Gap, or else church disciplinary measures will be taken.

How stupendous!

[ May 06, 2003, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]

 

Thanks for the appology, Murph - but it's no problem!

I see what you mean about the gap theory not wanting to accept the clear meaning of scripture, but I'm just suggesting that that might not make someone a 'liberal'. Certainly it is an 'accommodation' of the Bible with 'sceince falsely so-called', but it's the least bad, and actually allows almost all the verses to mean exactly what they say. I'd have thought that a true liberal would just have accepted evolution and called Genesis 1 uninspired or a myth or an allorgory.

However, the reason I'm inclined to defend Larkin on this one is that I think we may be guilty of the same problems we accuse Larkin of. Yes, he accommodated the Bible to fit 'science'; but this is what almost all present-day creationists do with such verses as Ps 93:1, Ps 104:5, Ecc 1:5, and other verses that seem to teach that the earth is still and the sun orbits it every day. The only reason that most people on here reject this is because they 'know' the earth goes around the sun because 'science' tells them so (I once had a long argument on here about this, and nobody could show me a single verse that backed up the model we're shown in text books - all it ever was was 'science'). Now, I'm not trying to change the subject of this debate, but just to point out that many unwittingly 'accommodate' the Bible to fit in with what 'science' tells them is true - however, I would not call someone a 'liberal' just because they disagreed with me that the earth does not move. Remember: there was no 'flood geology', institue for creation research or anything like that in Larkin's day. It was just as absurd to believe in a six-thousand-year-old universe then as it is to believe the earth is the centre of the universe now. I think Larkin was just misled on this one.

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

I hope so. Division is not wrong. It is what you divide over. If you want to believe the chaotic earth idea, that is your choice. However, don't demand respect for such a view. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't demand respect , Sir and you've lost mine by implying I do.

[ May 06, 2003, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]

 

The squire is right ... holding to the gap theory does not make a liberal. It certainly does make them confused. The gap theory is refuted by the text of Scripture. See Weston W. Fields, Unformed and Unfilled for the basic arguments. I will warn you it is difficult and if you don't know Hebrew, it gets worse.

I don't know that much about Larking. However, he was not a liberal per se. He believed in inerrancy I believe and in the basic fundamentals of the faith. Nor do I think he was he a hyper-dispensationalist in the strict normal usage of the word. A hyper dispensationalist usually believes in a "Jewish church" and a "Gentile church" with differing aspects for each one. I can't think of a name off the top of my head. Perhaps Bob or someone else will know.

Larkin did teach the two ways of salvation, which is certainly problemmatic and unbiblical. However, it probably falls short of preachign a false gospel because he did not preach to his hearers that they were saved under the old way. Larkin is a man to be wary of. He is outdated as well. There are other newer and better resources available that should be used.