Roman Jailer’s Attempted Suicide

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Inspiration of the BibleFactual Accurac

The historicity of the contents of the Bible, and the Bible’s uncanny accuracy in its handling of people and circumstances long since faded into the annals of ancient history, are powerful demonstrations of its supernatural origins. Take, for example, the occasion when Paul and Silas were imprisoned in the Roman town of Philippi (Acts 16). At about midnight, as they were singing hymns to God, an earthquake—Luke says it was a “great” one—literally shook the foundations of the prison, causing all the doors to open and the manacles on the prisoners to release. Roused from his sleep, the jailer saw that the prison doors had been jarred open, causing him to fear that the prisoners had, in fact, escaped. Consequently, he “drew his sword and was about to kill himself” (Acts 16:27). Why? True, allowing prisoners to escape is bad, but why would it merit committing suicide?

The historical evidence indicates that Roman jailers were required to take personal responsibility for the prisoners committed to them. This fact is reflected in the text where we are told that the “magistrates”1 of the city “command[ed] the jailer to keep them securely. Having received such a charge, he put them into the inner prison and fastened their feet in the stocks” (Acts 16:23-24). This “charge” was serious business. Negligence in this matter meant inevitable death—perhaps even by slow, painful torture.

No doubt influenced by Roman protocol along this line, when Peter escaped from custody, King Herod “examined the guards and commanded that they should be put to death” (Acts 12:19). Likewise, when Paul was being taken to Rome along with many other prisoners, hurricane force wind eventually drove the ship aground. Amid the turbulence, the Roman soldiers, who were charged with the custody of the prisoners, had formed a plan: “And the soldiers’ plan was to kill the prisoners, lest any of them should swim away and escape” (Acts 27:42). It was only because Paul had befriended the centurion that the intention of the soldiers was thwarted.

Such instances illustrate Roman law pertaining to “the custody of criminals” (de custodia reorum), which meant the jailer would have faced the same punishment that was to be inflicted on the escaped prisoner.2 Rather than face disgrace and a painful execution, the jailer decided to end his own life. The Roman code of honor necessitated it.3 Due to Paul’s diligence and love for lost souls, praise be to God that this suicidal pagan became a Christian.

Endnotes

1 The Greek has strategoi, which is the term Greek historians used to refer to the Roman political and/or military office of praetor—another proof of Luke’s historical accuracy.

2 See Frederick Sawyer (1882), “Roman Law as Illustrated in the New Testament,” in The Sunday at Home Family Magazine (London: Religious Tract Society), 29[1490]:726, November 18; Alford, 2:183; W.J. Conybeare and J.S. Howson (1893), The Life and Epistles of St. Paul (London: Longmans, Green, & Co.), pp. 236-237; R.J. Knowling (no date), The Expositor’s Greek Testament: The Acts of the Apostles, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 2:351; William Ramsay (1897),  Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1962 reprint), p. 222; p. 1701; Matthew Henry (1828), An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (London: Joseph Ogle Robinson), 3:839; Carl Ludwig von Bar (1916), A History of Continental Criminal Law, trans. Thomas Bell (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, & Co.), p. 47; Freeman, “Responsibility of Jailers,” p. 446; R.C.H. Lenski (1961), The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg), p. 676

3 W. McGarvey (1892), New Commentary on Acts of Apostles (Cincinnati, OH: Standard), 2:101.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed

 

13 Objections to Baptism

DAVE MILLER, Ph.D.

DOCTRINAL MATTERSBAPTISMDENOMINATIONALISMDIFFICULT PASSAGESDIFFICULT PASSAGESDIFFICULT PASSAGESSALVAT

Some churches historically have taught that water immersion is the dividing line between the lost and the saved. This means that a penitent believer remains unforgiven of sin until buried in the waters of baptism (Romans 6:4). Much of the denominational world disagrees with this analysis of Bible teaching, holding instead that one is saved at the point of “belief,” before and without water baptism. Consider some of the points that are advanced in an effort to minimize the essentiality of baptism for salvation.

Objection #1: “Jesus could not have been baptized for the remission of sins because He was sinless; therefore, people today are not baptized in order to be forgiven. They merely imitate Jesus’ example.”

The baptism to which Jesus submitted Himself was John’s baptism (Matthew 3:13; Mark 1:9). John’s baptism was for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3). This truth is particularly evident from the fact that when Jesus presented Himself to John for baptism, John sought to deter Him, noting that, if anything, Jesus needed to baptize John (Matthew 3:14). Jesus did not correct John, as many seek to do today, by falsely arguing that baptism is not for remission of sins. Rather, Jesus, in effect, agreed with John, but made clear that His baptism was an exception to the rule.

Jesus’ baptism was unique and not to be compared to anyone else’s baptism. Jesus’ baptism had the unique purpose of “fulfilling all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15). In other words, it was necessary for Jesus to submit to John’s baptism (1) to show His contemporaries that no one is exempt from submitting to God’s will and (2) more specifically, Christ’s baptism was God’s appointed means of pinpointing for the world the precise identity of His Son. It was not until John saw the Spirit of God descending on Jesus and heard the voice (“This is My Son…”) that he knew that “this is the Son of God” (John 1:31-34; Matthew 3:16-17).

Of course, John’s baptism is no longer valid (Acts 18:24-19:5). John’s baptism paralleled New Testament baptism in the sense that both were for the forgiveness of sins. But John’s baptism was transitional in nature, preparing Jews for their Messiah. Baptism after the cross is for all people (Matthew 28:19), in Jesus’ name (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 19:5), into His death (Romans 6:3), in order to be clothed with Him (Galatians 3:27), and added to His church (Acts 2:47; 1 Corinthians 12:13). We must not use Jesus’ baptism to suggest that salvation occurs prior to baptism.

Objection #2: “The thief on the cross was not baptized, and he was saved.”

When we “handle aright the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15), we see that the thief was not subject to the New Testament command of immersion because this command was not given until after the thief’s death.¹ It was not until Christ was resurrected that He said, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16). It was not until Christ’s death that the Old Testament ceased, signified by the tearing of the Temple curtain (Matthew 27:51). When Jesus died, He took away the Old Testament, “nailing it to the cross” (Colossians 2:14).

The word “testament” means “covenant” or “will.” The last will and testament of Christ is the New Testament, which consists of those teachings that apply to people after the death of Christ. If we expect to receive the benefits of the New Testament (salvation, forgiveness of sin, eternal life), we must submit to the terms of the will for which Christ is mediator (Hebrews 9:15), for “where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator; for a testament is of force after men are dead; otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator lives” (Hebrews 9:16-17).

So prior to the Lord’s death and the sealing of the New Testament, the baptism for the forgiveness of sins that would be in effect after the crucifixion was not a requirement for those who sought to be acceptable to God. Indeed, while Jesus was on Earth in person, He exercised His authority to forgive sin (Matthew 9:6). People now, however, live during the Christian era of religious history. Prior to Christ’s death, there were no Christians (Acts 11:26). For a person to reject water baptism as a prerequisite to salvation on the basis of what the thief did or did not do, is comparable to Abraham seeking salvation by building an ark—because that’s what Noah did to please God. It would be like the rich young ruler (Matthew 19) refusing Christ’s directive to sell all his possessions—because wealthy King David did not have to sell his possessions in order to please God.

The thief on the cross could not have been baptized the way the new covenant stipulates you and I must be baptized. Why? Romans 6:3-4 teaches that if we wish to acquire “newness of life,” we must be baptized into Christ’s death, be buried with Christ in baptism, and then be raised from the dead. There was no way for the thief to comply with this New Testament baptism—Christ had not died! Christ had not been buried! Christ had not been raised! In fact, none of God’s ordained teachings pertaining to salvation in Christ (2 Timothy 2:10), and in His body the Church (Acts 2:47; Ephesians 1:22-23), had been given. The church, which Christ’s shed blood purchased (Acts 20:28), had not been established, and was not set up until weeks later (Acts 2).2

We must not look to the thief as an example of salvation. Instead, we must obey “from the heart that form of doctrine” (Romans 6:17)—the form of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection through baptism (Romans 6:3-4). Only then can we be “made free from sin to become the servants of righteousness” (Romans 6:18).

Objection #3: “The Bible says, ‘Christ stands at the door of your heart,’ and all we have to do to be forgiven of sin and become a Christian is to invite Him into our hearts.”

It is no doubt startling to discover that the Bible simply does not say such a thing. The phraseology is reminiscent of Revelation 3:20—the passage usually invoked to support the idea. But examine what Revelation 3:20 actually teaches. Revelation chapters 2 and 3 consist of seven specific messages directed to seven churches of Christ in Asia Minor in the first century. Thus, at the outset, we must recognize that Revelation 3:20 is addressed to Christians—not non-Christians seeking conversion to Christ.

Second, Revelation 3:20 is found among Christ’s remarks to the church in Laodicea. Jesus made clear that the church had moved into a lost condition. The members were unacceptable to God since they were “lukewarm” (3:16). They had become unsaved since their spiritual condition was “wretched and miserable and poor” (3:17). Thus, in a very real sense, Jesus had abandoned them by removing His presence from their midst. Now He was on the outside looking in. He still wanted to be among them, but the decision was up to them. They had to recognize His absence, hear Him knocking for admission, and open the door—all of which is figurative language indicating their need to repent (3:19). They needed to return to the obedient lifestyle essential to sustaining God’s favor (John 14:21,23).

Observe that Revelation 3:20 in no way supports the idea that non-Christians merely have to “open the door of their heart” and “invite Jesus in” with the assurance that the moment they mentally/verbally do so, Jesus comes into their heart and they are simultaneously saved from all past sin and have become Christians. The context of Revelation 3:20 shows that Jesus was seeking readmission into an apostate church.

Does the Bible teach that Christ comes into a person’s heart? Yes, but not in the way the religious world suggests. For instance, Ephesians 3:17 states that Christ dwells in the heart through faith. Faith can be acquired only by hearing biblical truth (Romans 10:17). When Bible truth is obeyed, the individual is “saved by faith” (Hebrews 5:9; James 2:22; 1 Peter 1:22). Thus Christ enters our lives when we “draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience [i.e, repentance—DM] and our bodies washed with pure water [i.e., baptism—DM]” (Hebrews 10:22).

Objection #4: “A person is saved the moment he accepts Christ as his personal Savior—which precedes and therefore excludes water baptism.”

To suggest that all one has to do to receive the forgiveness of God and become a Christian is to mentally accept Jesus into his heart and make a verbal statement to that effect, is to dispute the declaration of Jesus in Matthew 7:21—“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.” To be sure, oral confession of Christ is one of the prerequisites to salvation (Romans 10:10). But Jesus said there is more to becoming a blood-bought follower of His than verbally “calling on his name”3 or “inwardly accepting Him as Savior.” He stated that before we can even consider ourselves as God’s children (Christians), we must show our acceptance of His gift through outward obedience—“He that does the will of My Father.” Notice the significant contrast Jesus made: the difference between mental/verbal determination to accept and follow the Lord, versus verbal confession coupled with action or obedience (cf. James 2:14,17). This is why we must do everything the Lord has indicated must be done prior to salvation. Jesus is telling us that it is possible to make the mistake of claiming we have found the Lord, when we have not done what He plainly told us to do.

Jesus said: “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Jesus also stated: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). Honestly, have you accepted Christ as your personal savior—in the way He said it must be done? He asks: “But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46, emp. added).

Objection #5: “We are clothed with Christ and become His children when we place our faith in Him.”

Read Galatians 3:26-27: “You are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” The words “put on” (NKJV) are a translation of the Greek verb enduro which signifies “to enter into, get into, as into clothes, to put on.” Can we be saved prior to “putting Christ on” or “being clothed” with Christ? Of course not. But when and how does one put on Christ—according to Paul? When one is baptized in water. Those who teach we can be saved before baptism are, in reality, teaching we can be saved while spiritually naked and without Christ! Paul affirms that we “put on” Christ at the point of our baptism—not before.

Paul wrote these words to people who were already saved. They had been made “sons of God by faith.” But how? At what point had they “been clothed with Christ”? When were they made “sons of God by faith”? When were they saved? Paul makes the answer to these questions very plain: they were united with Christ, had put on Christ, and were clothed with Christ—when they were baptized. Saving faith does not exclude baptism—it includes baptism. Ask yourself if you have been clothed with Christ.

Objection #6: “Baptism is like a badge on a uniform that merely gives evidence that the person is already saved.”

The New Testament nowhere expounds the idea that baptism is merely a “badge” or “outward sign of an inward grace.” Yes, baptism can biblically be referred to as a symbolic act; but what does it symbolize? Previous forgiveness? No! Romans 6 indicates that baptism symbolizes the previous death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Thus the benefits of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection (remember, Jesus’ blood, which blots out sin, was shed in the context of His death, burial, and resurrection) are realized and received by the individual when he obediently (in penitent faith) submits to a similar ordeal, i.e., the death of his own “old man” or “body of sin” (Romans 6:6), burial (immersion into a watery tomb), and resurrection (rising from the watery tomb).

Denominational doctrine maintains that forgiveness of sin is received prior to baptism. If so, the “new life” of the saved individual would also begin prior to baptism. Yet Paul said the “new life” occurs after baptism. He reiterated this to the Colossians. The “putting off of the body of the flesh by Christ’s circumcision” (Colossians 2:11) is accomplished in the context of water immersion and being “risen with Him” (Colossians 2:12). Chapter 3 then draws the important observation: “If then you were raised with Christ [an undeniable reference to baptism—DM], seek those things which are above” [an undeniable reference to the new life which follows—not precedes—baptism].

Objection #7: “Baptism is a meritorious work, whereas we are saved by grace, not works.”

“Works” or “steps” of salvation do not imply that one “merits” his salvation upon obedient compliance with those actions. Rather, “steps” or “a process” signifies the biblical concept of preconditions, stipulations of faith, or acts of obedience—what James called “works” (James 2:17). James was not saying that one can earn his justification (James 2:24). Rather, he was describing the active nature of faith, showing that saving faith, faith that is alive—as opposed to dead and therefore utterly useless (2:20)—is the only kind that is acceptable to God, a faith that obeys whatever actions God has indicated must be done. The obedience of both Abraham and Rahab is set forth as illustrative of the kind of faith James says is acceptable. They manifested their trust by actively doing what God wanted done. Such obedient or active trust is the only kind that avails anything. Thus, an obedient response is essential.

The actions themselves are manifestations of this trust that justifies, not the trust itself. But notice that according to James, you cannot have one without the other. Trust, or faith, is dead, until it leads one to obey the specifications God assigned. Here is the essence of salvation that separates those who adhere to biblical teaching from those who have been adversely influenced by the Protestant reformers. The reformers reacted to the unbiblical concept of stacking bad deeds against good deeds in an effort to offset the former by the latter (cf. Islam). Unfortunately, the reactionary reformers went to the equally unacceptable, opposite extreme by asserting that man need “only believe” (Luther) or man can do nothing at all (Calvin). The truth is between these two unbiblical extremes.

From Genesis to Revelation, faith is the trusting, obedient reaction that humans manifest in response to what God offers. This is the kind of “justification by faith” that Paul expounded in Romans. Like red flags at the very beginning (1:5) and at the end (16:26) of his divinely inspired treatise, he defined what he meant by “faith” with the words “obedient faith” (homochirality. pisteos), i.e., faith that obeys, obedience which springs from faith.4 This fact is precisely why God declared His willingness to fulfill the promises He made to Abraham: “because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws” (Genesis 26:5). Hence, in Romans Paul could speak of the necessity of walking “in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had” (Romans 4:12). Until faith obeys, it is useless and cannot justify.

The Hebrews writer made the same point in Hebrews 11. The faith we see in Old Testament “men of faith” availed only after they obeyed God-given stipulations. God rewards those who “diligently seek Him” in faith (vs. 6). Noah “became heir of the righteousness which is by faith” when he “prepared an ark.” If he had not complied with divine instructions, he would have been branded as “unfaithful.” The thing that made the difference, that constituted the line of demarcation between faith and lack of faith, was obedient action—what James called “works,” and Paul called “faith working through love” (Galatians 5:6). In this sense, even faith is a “work” (John 6:29). Hebrews 11 repeatedly reinforces this eternal principle: (1) God offers grace (which may at any point in history consist of physical blessings, e.g., healing, salvation from enemies, land or property, etc., or spiritual blessings, e.g., justification, forgiveness, salvation from sin, being made righteous, etc.); (2) man responds in obedient trust (i.e., “faith”) by complying with the stipulated terms; and (3) God bestows the blessing.

It would be wrong to think that man’s obedient response earns or merits the subsequent blessing. Such simply does not logically follow. All blessings God bestows on man are undeserved (Luke 17:10). His rich mercy and loving grace is freely offered and made available—though man never deserves such kindness (Titus 2:11). Still, a non-meritorious response is absolutely necessary if unworthy man is to receive certain blessings.

Objection #8: “Not only is baptism nonessential to salvation, even faith is a gift from God to a person. Man is so depraved that he is incapable of believing.”

Surely, God’s infinite justice would not permit Him to force man to desire God’s blessings. God’s intervention into man’s woeful condition was not in the form of causing man to desire help or miraculously generating faith within man. God intervened by giving His inspired Word, which tells how He gave His Son to make a way for man to escape eternal calamity. Faith is then generated in the individual by God’s words which the person must read and understand (Romans 10:17; Acts 8:30). The individual then demonstrates his faith in obedience.

Did the walls of Jericho fall down “by faith” (Hebrews 11:30)? Absolutely. But the salient question is: “When?” Did the walls fall the moment the Israelites merely “believed” that they would fall? No! Rather, when the people obeyed the divine directives. The walls fell “by faith” after the people met God’s conditions. If the conditions had not been met, the walls would not have fallen down “by faith.” The Israelites could not claim that the walls fell by their own effort, or that they earned the collapse of the walls. The city was given to them by God as an undeserved act of His grace (Joshua 6:2). To receive the free gift of the city, the people had to obey the divinely stipulated prerequisites.

Notice the capsuling nature of Hebrews 11:6. Faith or belief is not given by God. It is something that man does in order to please God. The whole chapter is predicated on the fundamental idea that man is personally responsible for mustering obedient trust. God does not “regenerate man by His call, thus enabling man to respond.” God “calls” individuals through, by means of, His written Word (2 Thessalonians 2:14). In turn, the written Word can generate faith in the individual (Romans 10:17). How unscriptural to suggest that man is so “totally depraved” that he cannot even believe, thus placing God in the position of demanding something from man (John 8:24) of which man is inherently incapable. But the God of the Bible would not be guilty of such injustice.

Some people approach passages like Romans 10:17 in this fashion: (1) God chooses to save an individual; (2) God gives him the free gift of faith; and (3) God uses the Gospel to stir up the faith which He has given the person. Yet neither Romans 10:17, nor any other passage, even hints at such an idea. The text states explicitly that faith comes from hearing Christ’s Word. Notice verse 14, where the true sequence is given: (1) the preacher preaches; (2) the individual hears the preached word; and (3) believes. This sequence is a far cry from suggesting that God miraculously imparts faith to a person, and then the Holy Spirit “stirs up” the faith. Such a notion has God giving man a defective faith which then needs to be stirred up. The text makes clear that God has provided for faith to be generated (i.e., originated) by the preached Word. God does not arbitrarily intervene and impose faith upon the hearts of a select group of individuals.

According to 1 Corinthians 1:21, mankind did not know God, so God transmitted His message through inspired preachers so that those who respond in faith would be saved. Paul wrote in Romans 1:16 that this gospel message is God’s power to save those who believe it. Notice that the Gospel is what Paul preached (vs. 15). Thus the preached message from God generates faith and enables people to be saved.

We see the same in Acts 2:37. What pierced the hearts of the listeners? Obviously, the sermon. Acts 2:37 is a demonstration of Romans 10:17—“faith comes by hearing…the word of God.” God did not change the hearts of the people miraculously; Peter’s words did. If denominational doctrine is correct, when the Jews asked the apostles what they should do, Peter should have said: “There’s nothing you can do. You are so totally depraved, you can’t do anything. God will regenerate you; He will cause you to believe (since faith is His ‘free gift’).” Yet, quite to the contrary, Peter told them that they needed to do some things. And they were things that God could not do for them.

First, they were required to “repent.” Biblical repentance is a change of mind (Matthew 21:29). A “turning” follows repentance (Acts 3:19) and consists of some specified action subsequent to the change of mind. John the Baptizer called this turning activity, which follows repentance and serves as evidence that repentance has occurred, “fruits” (Matthew 3:8). After being convicted (Acts 2:37—i.e., believing the truth of Peter’s contentions), they were told to “repent,” to change their minds about their previous course of life. What else were they to do?

Peter did not tell them to “repent and believe.” Their belief was already abundantly evident in their pricked hearts and their fervent petition for instructions. What was lacking? Peter said (i.e., God said) they still lacked baptism. Remember, the only difference between dead faith and saving faith is outward action—compliance with all actions that God specifies as necessary before He will freely bestow unmerited favor in the form of forgiveness.

Thus baptism marked the point at which God would count them righteous if they first believed and repented. Baptism served as the line of demarcation between the saved and the lost. Jesus’ blood could wash their sins away only at the point of baptism.

Objection #9: “The preposition ‘for’ in the phrase ‘for the remission of sins’ in Acts 2:38 means ‘because of.’ Hence, they were baptized because of sins for which they were forgiven when they believed.”

The English word “for” has, as one of its meanings, “because of.” However, the Greek preposition eis that underlies the English word “for” never has a causal function. It always has its primary, basic, accusative thrust: unto, into, to, toward. We must not go to the text, decide what we think it means, and assign a grammatical meaning that coincides with our preconceived understanding. We must begin with the inspired grammar and seek to understand every text in light of the normal, natural, common meaning of the grammatical and lexical construction. The same grammatical construction of Acts 2:38 is found in Matthew 26:28—“into the remission of sins” (eisaphesin hamartion). Jesus’ blood, the blood of the covenant, was undeniably shed for many “in order to acquire remission of sins.” This is the natural and normal meaning of the Greek preposition—toward, in the direction of. Had the Holy Spirit intended to say that baptism is “because of” or “on account of” past forgiveness, He would have used the Greek preposition that conveys that very idea: dia with the accusative.

Similarly, in Acts 2:38, if repentance is not “because of” remission of sins, neither is baptism. Regardless of person and number considerations, Peter told his hearers to do both things. The act of baptism (connected to the act of repentance by the coordinate conjunction) cannot be extricated from the context of remission of sins by any stretch.

Objection #10: “When the Philippian jailer asked what to do to be saved, he was simply told to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.”

As further proof that God does not miraculously bestow faith on a person through the Holy Spirit, observe that Paul told the jailer that he (the jailer) had to believe; he did not answer the jailer’s question with: “You don’t have to do anything. God will give you faith.” On the contrary, Paul and Silas told him that he had to manifest faith in Jesus. But was this pagan jailer in a position at that moment to do so? No, he would have to be taught Who, how, and what to believe. No wonder, then, Luke records immediately: “they spoke the word of the Lord to him” (Acts 16:32). If Romans 10:17 can be trusted, the words which Paul and Silas proclaimed generated faith in the jailer. And those same words surely included the necessity of repentance and baptism, because the jailer immediately manifested the fruit of repentance (by washing their stripes), and likewise was immediately baptized (not waiting until morning or the weekend). Observe carefully Luke’s meticulous documentation, that it was only after the jailer believed, repented, and was baptized, that the jailer was in a position to rejoice. Only then did Luke describe the jailer as “having believed in God” (vs. 34), i.e., now standing in a state of perfected belief.5

Objection #11: “Saul was saved before and without baptism while he was on the road to Damascus when Jesus appeared to him.”

The actual sequence of events delineated in Acts shows that Saul was not saved while on the road to Damascus. Jesus identified Himself and then accused Saul of being a persecutor (Acts 9:5). Saul “trembled” and was “astonished” (hardly the description of a saved individual), and pleadingly asked what he should do—a clear indication that he had just been struck with his lost and undone condition.

This question has the exact same force as the Pentecostians’ question (Acts 2:37) and the jailer’s question (Acts 16:30). All three passages are analogous in their characterization of individuals who had acted wrongly (i.e., the Pentecostians had crucified Jesus, Saul was persecuting Christians, and the jailer had kept innocent Christians jailed). Likewise, in each instance, the candidates for conversion are portrayed as unhappy (i.e., the Pentecostians were “cut to the heart,” Saul “trembled” and “was astonished,” and the jailer “came trembling”—i.e., he was frightened). They were scared, miserable individuals, suddenly brought face to face with their horribly unacceptable status before God. Such is hardly an apt description for saved individuals. Where is the joy, peace, and excitement that comes when one’s sins have been washed away?

Saul was not forgiven on the road to Damascus—he still needed to be told what he “must do” (Acts 9:6). He still lacked “hearing the word of the Lord.” The only way for Saul to hear the Gospel was through the agency of a preacher (Romans 10:14; 1 Corinthians 1:21).  Similarly, an angel told Cornelius (Acts 10:4) that his prayers and money had gone up for a memorial before God—yet he was unsaved. He needed to contact an inspired preacher, Peter, “who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved” (Acts 11:14). Likewise, before Saul could learn of God’s plan that he be the great “apostle of the Gentiles,” he first needed to hear the Gospel expounded and told how to respond to what God offered in Christ.

Rather than tell him what he needed to do to be saved, Jesus told him to go into the city, where a preacher (Ananias) would expound to him the necessity of salvation. Notice: Saul waited in Damascus for three days without food and drink, and was still blind. Here’s an individual who was still miserable, unhappy, and unsaved, awaiting instructions on how to change his unfortunate status. Acts 9:18 condenses Saul’s response to the preached Word, while Acts 22 elaborates a little further on the significance of Saul’s response. Ananias said, “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16).

Notice Ananias’ inspired connection between baptism and sins being cleansed. If Saul was saved prior to baptism, it was wrong for Ananias to say that Saul still had sins that needed to be washed away. Ananias did not congratulate Saul because his sins already were washed away, and tell him that he needed to be baptized only as a “badge” or “outward symbol” or “picture” of what had already occurred. He plainly said Saul’s sins yet needed to be washed away. That can be accomplished only by Jesus’ blood in the act of baptism. The water does not cleanse the sin-stained soul—Jesus does. And Ananias clearly stated when (not how or by Whom) that occurs. If Saul’s penitent faith would not lead him to submit to water immersion, he could not have had his sins washed away by Jesus. Instead, he would have remained in opposition to Jesus. Remember, Scripture never portrays baptism as symbolic of previous sin removal. The only symbolism ever attached to the act of baptism is its (1) likeness to Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:3-5); (2) its comparison to the removal of sin like circumcision removes skin (Colossians 2:12); and (3) its likeness to Noah’s emergence from a sinful world (1 Peter 3:20-21). God literally (not symbolically) removes sin and justifies the individual by grace, through faith, at the point of baptism.

Objection #12: “If baptism is necessary to salvation, Jesus would have said, ‘but he who does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned’ in Mark 16:16. And besides, the last twelve verses of Mark 16 are not included in the oldest and best Greek manuscripts.”

The omission of “and is not baptized” in Mark 16:16 is completely logical and necessary. The first phrase (“he who believes and is baptized”) describes man’s complete response necessitated by the preaching of the Gospel: Faith must precede baptism, since obviously one would not submit to baptism if he did not first believe. It is non-essential to ascribe condemnation in the second clause to the individual who is not baptized, since the individual being condemned is the one who does not initially believe. The person who refuses to believe “is condemned already” (John 3:18) and certainly would not be interested in the next item of compliance—baptism. He who does not believe would obviously not be baptized—and even if he would, his failure to first believe disqualifies him from being immersed. Only penitent believers are candidates for baptism. An exact grammatical parallel would be: “He who goes to the store and buys coffee for his father will receive $5.00. He who does not go to the store will be spanked.” Obviously, if the child refuses to go to the store, he would not be in a position to buy coffee, and it would be redundant—even grammatically and linguistically inappropriate—to include the failure to purchase the coffee in the pronouncement of an impending spanking.

Are the last verses of Mark 16 uninspired? The textual evidence supporting the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 is exceptional in light of the vast sources available for establishing the original text. While it is true that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus omit the last 12 verses, it is positively misleading to assume that “the validity of these verses is weak.” In fact, the vast number of witnesses are in favor of the authenticity of verses 9-20. The rejection of Vaticanus is less weighty in light of its comparable exclusion of the Pastoral Epistles, the last part of Hebrews, and Revelation. The rejection of Sinaiticus is similarly unconvincing, since it includes some of the Apocryphal books.6

Objection #13: “Romans 10:9-10 indicates that all one needs to do is believe and confess Jesus.”

The use of eis in Romans 10:10 cannot mean “because of.” Verse nine explicitly says one will be saved “if” he confesses and believes in the heart. Confession and faith are therefore prerequisites to forgiveness. They are God-ordained “responses” to the preached Word (vs. 8) and must occur before salvation is imparted by God. In other words, one’s soul is purified when he obeys the truth (1 Peter 1:22). Jesus provides eternal salvation to those who obey Him (Hebrews 5:9).

But is baptism excluded from salvation since only faith and confession are mentioned in Romans 10:9-10? Notice, four chapters earlier, the order of Romans 6:17-18: (1) slaves to sin; (2) person obeys; (3) made free from sin (righteous). Item (3) cannot occur unless item (2) occurs first. The “whole” of man is to reverence God and keep His commands (Ecclesiastes 12:13). To whom does God give the Holy Spirit? To those whom He arbitrarily chooses, without any consideration of the individual’s necessitated response? No. Acts 5:32 says God gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey Him. God has always conditioned the bestowal of spiritual blessing upon prior obedient response (Jeremiah 7:23; Genesis 26:4-5). Deuteronomy 5:10 says God shows mercy to those who love Him and keep His commands.

In Romans 10, Paul is not stressing the specific aspects of the conversion process. That is not the context. Rather, the context addresses whether one is acceptable to God in the Christian dispensation due to physical heritage (i.e., race/ethnicity), versus whether one is saved when one complies with God’s instruction. Paul was stressing that their nationality could not bring the Jews into God’s favor. Rather, people are saved when they render obedience to the Gospel. He quoted Joel 2:32, where the emphasis is on the word “whosoever” in contrast to “Jews only.” Verse 12 argues that God does not distinguish on the basis of race. The individual’s response to the preached Word is the deciding factor. However, Romans 10 does not reveal all of the details of that obedient response. One must be willing to search out the whole truth on such a subject.

If repentance is essential to salvation, one must concede that such teaching must come from some passage other than Romans 10. Does Romans 10:10 mean that repentance is unnecessary, just because it is unmentioned in the text? No, since repentance is required in chapter 2:4. If not, then why assume baptism to be nonessential simply because it is not mentioned in this particular text? It is enjoined in chapter 6:3-4. To ascertain the significance of baptism in God’s sight, one must go to passages that discuss that subject, rather than dismiss them in deference to verses on faith. If God says, “faith saves” (Romans 5:1), let us accept that truth. If God says, “baptism saves” (1 Peter 3:21), let us accept that truth, too! Jesus Himself said: belief + baptism = salvation (Mark 16:16), not belief = salvation + baptism.

Notice also, Romans 10:10,13 does not say that salvation can be acquired by mere verbal confession (e.g., “I accept Jesus into my heart as my personal Savior”). Why?

(1) Nowhere is the statement, “Accept Jesus as your personal Savior,” found in Scripture.

(2) Jesus forever dashed the idea of salvation by mental acceptance/verbal profession alone in Matthew 7:21 and Luke 6:46, where He showed that oral confession alone is unacceptable. In every age, there have been specified actions of obedience that God has required before He would count individuals as pleasing or acceptable. In fact, if faith is not coupled with the appropriate obedient action (like baptism), then such faith is unable to justify. Such faith is imperfect (James 2:17,20,26) and therefore cannot save!

(3) The phrase “call on the name of the Lord” is an idiomatic way to say: “respond with appropriate obedient actions.” It is the figure of speech known as synecdoche (i.e., the part stands for the whole). To “call” on God’s name is equivalent to saying, “Do what He tells you to do.” Isaiah 55:6 told the Jews of Isaiah’s day to call on God. Verse 7 explains how: (1) forsake wicked ways, (2) forsake wicked thoughts, (3) return to the Lord. To obey these three stipulations constituted “calling on God.”

Likewise, those in Jerusalem who “called on the Lord’s name” (Acts 9:14,21) had done so, not solely by verbal confession, but by repentance and baptism for forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). Similarly, Paul himself became a Christian, that is, he “called on the name of the Lord”—not by verbally confessing Christ—but by being baptized (Acts 22:16). For Paul, “calling on the Lord’s name” was equivalent to (not precedent to) being baptized. God washed his sins away by the blood of Jesus at the point of his baptism.

CONCLUSION

Though the bulk of Christendom for centuries has veered off into Calvinism and other post-first century theological thought, the meaning and design of baptism is determined by the New Testament. The verses in the New Testament that speak about baptism are definitive. They indicate that water immersion precedes salvation—along with faith, repentance, and confession of Christ’s deity. No objection has ever overturned this divinely intended function.

ENDNOTES

1 Although the thief may well have submitted to the precursor to NT baptism, i.e., John’s baptism, it also was “for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3).

2 See also Dave Miller (2003), “The Thief on the Cross,” Apologetics Press, https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1274&topic=86.

3 Cf. Eric Lyons (2004), “Calling on the Name of the Lord,” https://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/597.

4 Rudolf Bultmann (1968), “πιστεύω,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982 reprint), 6:206; Fredrick William Danker (2000), “ὑπακοη,” A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago), third edition, p. 1028; James Denny (no date), “St. Paul’s Epistles to the Romans” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 2:587; J.B. Lightfoot (1895), Notes on Epistles of St. Paul (London: Macmillan), p. 246; H.P.V. Nunn (1912), A Short Syntax of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 42; Geoffrey H. Parke-Taylor (1944), “A Note on ‘είς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως’ in Romans 1.5 and xvi.26,” The Expository Times, 55:305-306; A.T. Robertson (1931), Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press), 4:324; Marvin Vincent (1946), Word Studies in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 3:5; W.E. Vine (1966), An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell), p. 123.

5 W.M. Ramsay (1915), The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London: Houghton and Stoughton), p. 165.

6 For a more thorough discussion of this matter, see Dave Miller (2005), “Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired?” Reason & Revelation, 25[12]:89-95, December, https://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2780.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

4 Reasons to Believe Evolution is NOT True

Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Creation vs. EvolutionAlleged Human EvolutionGeneticsPaleontolog

 Article in Brief

While a majority of Americans accept Darwinian evolution to be true, at least four insurmountable barriers stand in the way of its validity. The origin of life, its complexity, and its genetic information prohibit evolution from even starting, and the oft’-cited textbook evidences for the evolution of that life are all either erroneous, irrelevant, or inadequate. Creation is still the logical (and obvious) explanation for the origin of life and its immense diversity.

The Bible does not allow evolution to be true, so theistic evolution is not an option.1 Therefore, either Creation is true or God-less evolution is true. But there is no evidence to support the self-creation of the Universe, matter and energy, or the laws of science.2 Nor is there evidence that the Universe is as old as is required by evolutionary theory.3 In fact, there are scientific evidences which just as easily provide support for a young Universe.4 And yet, cosmic evolution is still accepted by many as a legitimate scientific explanation for the Universe.

The problems with evolutionary theory, however, do not stop with the origin, age, and evolution of the Universe itself. Biological evolution (or “macroevolution”) is just as much a problem as is cosmic evolution.5 At some point(s) in the past, if evolution is true, life must have arisen from lifelessness and somehow changed into all species which have ever roamed planet Earth. Does the evidence support biological evolution?

Problem #1: Life from Non-life

Before life can evolve, life has to exist. If evolution is true, that first life had to come about from non-life, a phenomenon called “abiogenesis” or “spontaneous generation.” Abiogenesis, however, has long been acknowledged to be an unprovable, though necessary, part of evolution. In 1960 G.A. Kerkut published The Implications of Evolution. Therein he listed seven non-provable assumptions upon which evolution is based. “The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred.”6 In spite of the admission that evolution is based on non-provable assumptions, many today in the evolutionary community boldly assert that their theory is a scientific fact. However, the unbiased observer must ask: what does the scientific evidence actually have to say about the origin of life?

The work of various scientists over the centuries disproved the superstitious idea that life can come from non-life (e.g., Francesco Redi and Lazzaro Spallanzani). Louis Pasteur is generally acknowledged to be the scientist whose experiments drove nails into the proverbial abiogenesis coffin. Even standard evolution-based high school biology textbooks have historically acknowledged that fact. For example, one such popular textbook stated, “It was not until 1864, and the elegant experiment of French scientist Louis Pasteur, that the hypothesis of spontaneous generation was finally disproved.”7 They acknowledged that, “Pasteur, like Redi and Spallanzani before him, had shown that life comes only from life.”8 This truth is so absolute that it has been deemed a scientific law: the Law of Biogenesis. Evolutionist George G. Simpson, one of the most influential paleontologists of the 20th century, articulated well the findings of science: “[T]here is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the product or offspring of another cell.”9 Though many attempts have since been made to initiate life from non-life, none have succeeded. Leading evolutionary biologists have been forced to acknowledge, therefore, that abiogenesis is “impossible,” “absurd,” and an “obsolete concept,”10 but without it, evolution cannot even get started!

Notice the following acknowledgements by leading evolutionists over the years. Evolutionist and Nobel Laureate, George Wald, of Harvard University wrote: “As for spontaneous generation, it continued to find acceptance until finally disposed of by the work of Louis Pasteur.”11 He further admitted, “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are, as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.”12 Notice that his belief in spontaneous generation is not based on the actual evidence but, instead, on blind faith in evolution in spite of the evidence. In the lecture series, Origins of Life,13 evolutionary geologist Robert Hazen made notable admissions: “The origin of life is a subject of immense complexity, and I have to tell you right up front, we don’t know how life began.”14 “How can I tell you about the origin of life when we are so woefully ignorant of that history?” Evolutionists do not know how life could emerge from non-life within their naturalistic theory, but they believe in it anyway.

Evolutionist Paul Davies, theoretical physicist, cosmologist, astrobiologist, and professor at Arizona State University, writing in New Scientist, said, “One of the great outstanding scientific mysteries is the origin of life. How did it happen?…The truth is, nobody has a clue.”15 Evolutionist John Horgan did not even try to veil his admission within an article. He titled one of his articles, “Pssst! Don’t Tell the Creationists, but Scientists Don’t Have a Clue How Life Began.” Such admissions are quite telling, albeit incorrect. What Davies, Horgan, and Dawkins mean is, no naturalistic evolutionist “has a clue.” Biblical supernaturalists, on the other hand, know exactly how life originated, and the answer harmonizes perfectly with the Law of Biogenesis—unlike evolution’s life-origins fairytale. If one sticks with the evidence, he must conclude that to believe life can come from non-life would be irrational, unscientific, and requires blind faith in evolution.16

Problem #2: The Nature of the First Life

Life coming from non-life, in actuality, is the “easy” part. The difficulty of getting life from non-life is so overwhelming that we usually fail to realize other daunting aspects of the equation that compound the difficulty of the problem for evolutionists. The distinguished British astronomer, Sir Fred Hoyle, once highlighted the gravity of the abiogenesis problem.

At all events, anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the Rubik cube will concede the near-impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cubic faces at random. Now imagine 1050 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling at just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only biopolymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.17

The arrival of life on Earth from non-life is problematic enough, but life cannot exist without an actual “operating program” that tells it how to function once it exists.

But the problem does not stop there, either. What would happen to the first life if it could not reproduce itself? Famous evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins stated in an interview with Ben Stein regarding the origin of life, “Nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event that it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life. It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.” Obviously, the first life had to already have the functionality to reproduce: yet another hurdle that would be impossible for evolution to jump. Stein asked Dawkins, “Right. And how did that happen?” Dawkins replied, “I’ve told you. We don’t know.” Stein then said, “So, you have no idea how it started?” Dawkins replied, “No. Nor has anybody.”18 John Keosian, biology professor at Rutgers University, said, “Even conceptually, it is difficult to see how a system satisfying the minimum criteria for a living thing can arise by chance and, simultaneously, include a mechanism containing the suitable information for its own replication.”19 We agree.  

And yet, another problem exists when considering what would have to occur for abiogenesis to be possible. The biomolecules of life generally are only found in one (out of two) of the main three-dimensional biomolecule configurations—a scenario called homochirality. However, as biochemist Joe DeWeese of Freed-Hardeman University noted, “in a pre-biotic system (one where life does not yet exist) there is no clear mechanism for preferentially causing the formation of one chiral form over another. This means there is no homochirality. Instead, when chemicals react in experimental systems, researchers tend to get mixtures of L- and D- [i.e., “right-handed” and “left-handed”—JM] forms of molecules,”20 a dilemma called the “homochirality problem” by origin-of-life scientists. Experimental evidence does not support the contention that abiogenesis occurred.

No wonder abiogenesis is deemed by many evolutionists to require a “miracle” that requires blind faith on the part of the evolutionist to accept.21 But the problem for evolutionists does not stop there, either. Evolutionist John Maddox, writing in Nature, said, “[I]t is disappointing that the origin of the genetic code is still as obscure as the origin of life itself.”22

Problem #3: The Origin of Genetic Information

Darwin believed that “natural selection” would serve as a mechanism to make evolution happen. However, in the immortal words of Dutch evolutionary botanist Hugo de Vries, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.”23 Natural selection is simply a “filtering mechanism” that eliminates those species that are not as well suited to an environment as another species. Those species must already exist, however, in order for them to be filtered. What natural mechanism could create the species in the first place?

Mainstream evolutionary thinking today is that genetic mutations coupled with natural selection will create the best fit species, a belief known as “Neo-Darwinism.” Once again, however, genes must already exist in order for them to be mutated. Where did the first, “simple” genome come from? And how could new genetic information (i.e., new “raw material”) be subsequently spontaneously created naturally as the original life forms morphed into other life forms? In the words of the late, famous evolutionary paleontologist of Harvard University, Stephen Jay Gould, “A mutation doesn’t produce major new raw material. You don’t make a new species by mutating the species…. That’s a common idea people have; that evolution is due to random mutations. A mutation is not the cause of evolutionary change.”24 If a living thing does not already have the genetic code to grow new parts, it cannot grow them, because that would require new raw material.

Consider the analogy of making a digital copy of a file from a computer onto a flash drive. When a file is copied, “mutations” can sometimes occur. The file does not always copy properly. The final copy is not always exactly like the original. Codon errors, duplications, translocations, deletions, and other mutations exist in genetics—errors that cause the final copy to be “mutated.” Do such mutations add new raw material? Do they “write a new sentence” in the file? No. A mutation might cause a fly to have extra wings (homeotic mutations) or a person to have an extra toe (polydactyly), but mutations do not create a new feature or a new creature. A mutation would not cause a wing to appear on a creature, for example, unless the creature already had wings in its genome.

Why? Because when the structure of the DNA molecule was discovered in the twentieth century, James Watson and Francis Crick “discovered that DNA stores information using a four-character chemical alphabet. Strings of precisely sequenced chemicals called nucleotide bases store and transmit the assembly instructions—the information—for building the crucial protein molecules and machines the cell needs to survive.”25 Information is packed into our genes, and yet, in the words of information scientist Werner Gitt of the Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, “There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.”26 Bottom line: evolution has no way of getting life from non-life, and no way to evolve it into something different when it arrives. Once again, the evolutionist must rely on blind faith to hold his position.27

Problem #4: Insufficient Evidence for Evolution

In order for a belief to be “rational,” it must have sufficient supporting evidence. After all, the Law of Rationality states that one should only draw those conclusions that are warranted by the evidence.28 Biblical creation is rational, since it is based on evidence that the Bible is of divine origin.29 Is belief in evolution a rational belief or a blind faith? Where is the evidence for evolution?

When a student takes “Biology” class in public high school or college, he will most likely find a section in his textbook listing alleged evidences for evolution. Upon closer examination, without exception, these evidences can be categorized as being one of three possibilities: erroneous, irrelevant, or inadequate. Consider the following commonly listed evidences for macroevolution:

Category 1: Erroneous Evidences

• Embryonic recapitulation: Ernst Haeckel, living at the turn of the 19th century, asserted that embryos in their development in the womb repeat the evolutionary history of their species. Though his idea quickly became embedded in evolution-friendly textbooks, his claims were not only found to be inaccurate,30 but eventually found to be a hoax.31 Upon confrontation, Haeckel eventually acknowledged that several of the charts he used to promote his theory were fabricated to support his theory. He said, “I should feel utterly condemned and annihilated by the admission, were it not that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge. The great majority of all morphological, anatomical, histological, and embryological diagrams are not true to nature, but are more or less doctored, schematized and reconstructed.”32

• Horse evolution charts: Textbooks often have charts allegedly documenting the evolution of horses from the small, fox-like creature known as eohippus or hyracotherium. Several decades ago, however, leading paleontologists acknowledged that the “uniform, continuous transformation of hyracotherium into equus [modern horses—JM], so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature.”33 Perhaps the leading paleontologist of the twentieth century, Harvard professor Stephen Jay Gould, subtly chided those who spread misinformation by using horse evolution as proof of evolution:
  
  Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because, as stated above, textbooks copy from previous texts. (I have written two essays on this lamentable practice: one on the amusingly perennial description of the eohippus, or “dawn horse,” as the size of a fox terrier, even though most authors, including yours truly, have no idea of the dimensions or appearance of this breed…).34
  
  Keep in mind that even if some or all of the animals on the typical horse charts were, in fact, part of the ancestry of modern horses, hyracotherium (the first animal on the horse evolution chart) is still acknowledged by evolutionists to be a “horse” and, therefore, is argued by some creationists to be part of the “horse kind” which left the Ark. If so, horse evolution charts would be evidence of microevolution (not macroevolution) and would, therefore, constitute inadequate evidence of macroevolution (category three below). Bottom line: evidence for macroevolution cannot be found among the horses.35

• Whale evolution charts: Whale evolution has been called “one of the best documented examples of mammal evolution,”36 and yet the entire timeline of whale evolution is now being re-vamped (again). Whales were historically argued by many to be descended from hippos, until 1979 when pakicetus became the believed ancestor of the whales. Discovery of more bones over the years caused scientists to completely change their portraits of pakicetus to look something like a land-dwelling, wolf-like mammal, with only a slight resemblance to the whale in its teeth. As would be expected, after further discoveries, pakicetus is now being abandoned and scientists are changing the evolutionary story of whales again. They now suggest that carnivorous whales may have descended from a tiny, deer-like, herbivorous, aquatic creature known as indohyus—a big shift, to say the least, in spite of the supposed documentation of whale evolution. What will be the new supposed evolutionary ancestor of whales in the coming years?

• Transitional fossils: As we have shown elsewhere, the fossil record is, perhaps, one of the strongest evidences in favor of Creation, not evolution.37 Abrupt appearance, stasis, and mass extinction characterize the fossil record from bottom to top, exactly as creationists would predict and exactly the opposite of what evolution would predict. While there should be billions of transitional fossils linking all life forms to previous ancestors if Darwin was correct, in truth, there are no undisputed transitional forms.38 While change should characterize the fossil record, leading paleontologists have long acknowledged instead that stasis is the rule.39 If Darwinian evolution actually happened, transitional forms would be prevalent, especially among the invertebrates which fossilize more easily and make up most of the fossils on the planet by far. However, few if any alleged transitional forms among the invertebrates have even been uncovered by evolutionists. Even among the few alleged vertebrate transitional forms, as time passes, the fossil is ultimately re-considered and marked off the list of supposed evidences for evolution. To illustrate, perhaps the two most oft’-cited alleged transitional creatures in the animal kingdom would be tiktaalik and archaeopteryx.
  
  Tiktaalik has been hailed as the transitional creature linking fish and amphibians, a creature whose pelvic fins (its front fins) are thought to have been evolving into legs. However, in 2010 researchers40 in Poland discovered four-limbed animal tracks in fossil strata believed to be nine million years older than the tiktaalik strata. How could tiktaalik be the transition from fish to legged amphibians if four-legged creatures were already around and fully-functional “nine million years” before tiktaalik was on the scene?
  
  Archaeopteryx is thought to be the creature that linked dinosaurs to their descendants, the birds. Equipped with teeth and claws, but also sporting feathers, a wishbone, and a beak, archaeopteryx looked to scientists as though it was not quite bird and was not quite dinosaur. Some admittedly modern birds and birds within the fossil record, however, have claws41 and teeth42 as well, proving that having them does not imply they descended from dinosaurs. Further, acknowledged birds have been found in fossil strata thought to be “millions of years” older than the strata in which archaeopteryx was found,43 and the supposed feathered dinosaurs do not arrive in the fossil strata until “millions of years” after the strata in which archaeopteryx is found. In the words of British paleontologist and senior editor of Nature, Henry Gee, concerning the “dethronement of Archaeopteryx,” “Archaeopteryx is just another dinosaur with feathers.”44 Bottom line: archaeopteryx is now considered by most to be a true bird. It is not transitional.45

Category 2: Irrelevant Evidences

The logical Fallacy of Equivocation occurs when the same word is used in at least two unclear ways in an argument, and the two are treated as though they are one and the same.46 “Trees have branches. My bank has branches. Therefore, my bank is a tree.” Richard Dawkins was no doubt referring to this category of evidence when he claimed that evolution is a “fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt.” He claimed, “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”47 If, by “evolution” is meant the concept that change happens over time (e.g., we are not exactly the same as our parents), then perhaps only “ignorant, stupid or insane” people reject evolution. If, however, by “evolution” Dawkins is referring to molecules-to-man evolution, then evolution certainly is not a “fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt.” However, without clarification, many students fall victim to the Fallacy of Equivocation, assuming that since change happens, (Darwinian) evolution must be true.

With that in mind, the Biology student should be careful not to be swayed by this category of alleged evidences for evolution—a category which is, perhaps, proclaimed the loudest. This category contains, for example, instances of “evolution” which are not disputed by creationists (i.e., microevolution), but which do not provide evidence for the form of evolution accepted by mainstream secular scientists today (i.e., macroevolution)—“molecules-to-man” naturalistic evolution.

• Natural selection: When a species is not as well-suited to a particular habitat as another species, if the less “fit” species does not migrate to a different environment for which it is more suited, the more fit species will tend to thrive and the less fit species will tend to die out. That is natural selection, and it is not rejected by creationists. However, natural selection in no way supports the idea that a fish can turn into an amphibian or a dinosaur can turn into a bird. As discussed earlier, natural selection is merely a filtering mechanism which cannot act until a species already exists. Evolution requires the appearance of a new creature before natural selection can do its work. Natural selection, therefore, is an irrelevant evidence in regard to macroevolution—it neither supports it nor refutes it.

• Geographic distribution and finches: Charles Darwin, in his travels, noted that animals that were slightly different from one another, but clearly still related, would often be found in a single local area, but in different habitats (e.g., slightly different climates). He saw this as evidence that those animals descended from a common ancestor in the area and that natural selection caused certain varieties to thrive in different habitats. He observed varieties of finch (as well as tortoises, iguanas, and plants), for example, with different colored feathers and different sized or shaped beaks. These varieties, he postulated, must have descended from a single ancestor in South America.
  
  However, while variety existed among the finches, they all were still acknowledged to be finches. Further, as biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant of Princeton, who spent 35 years studying the Darwin Galapagos finches, acknowledged, “for beak size and shape to evolve, there must be enough heritable variation in those traits to provide raw material for natural selection.”48 In other words, the possible variation seen among the finches was all inherited from the original ancestor—it was not spontaneously generated from thin air. The variation was already built into the species. Nothing new came about, but macroevolution requires new material. Again, therefore, geographic distribution is an irrelevant evidence for macroevolution. Heritable variation within animals implies (1) an initial Creator of the genetic information that was inherited by offspring, and (2) variation is limited by the genetic package that the original ancestor is equipped with. Evolution across phylogenic boundaries from one kind of animal to another, therefore, cannot happen if the ancestor was not already equipped with the genetic information to allow such a change. Since the original, simple single-celled organisms thought by evolutionists to have launched life on Earth would not have been equipped with the genetic information to bring about all of the species on the planet, macroevolution is not possible.
  
  Darwin also acknowledged cases where there were animals in similar habitats across the world that were apparently not descended from the same ancestors but that had similarities in structure anyway. He considered these examples to be evidence of natural selection: that the pressures of natural selection cause certain body characteristics to appear and thrive in certain environments, while other characteristics less suited to the environment die out. This, once again, is merely evidence of natural selection, not macroevolution—an irrelevant evidence.

• Evidences of microevolution: Darwin’s finches are a classic example of microevolutionary change—small changes under the umbrella of the general kind of creature that God originally created (Genesis 1:24). Microevolution is not proof of macroevolution, however, since all available evidence supports a hard reproductive boundary, beyond which an animal cannot evolve. Evolutionary paleontologist Steven Stanley explained: “The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution [i.e., evolution of a new phylum—JM] accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.”49 Change between species seems only to be capable at roughly the genus or family level (e.g., speciation from wolves to dogs). The original kinds that God created had the potential for a certain amount of diversity within them, but not enough to change the kinds into a different kind. Other often cited examples of microevolutionary change would include peppered moth varieties, bacteria “evolving” resistance to antibiotics, and fruit fly varieties. Mutated flies are still flies, resistant bacteria are still bacteria, and dark peppered moths are every bit as much moths as are light colored peppered moths. Microevolutionary evidences are irrelevant evidences in trying to prove that single-celled organisms can evolve into humans over millions of years.50

Category 3: Inadequate Evidences

Admittedly, one category of alleged evidence for evolution stands as unrefuted potential evidence for evolution. The evidence is not adequate evidence, however, considering that the same evidence can be used with better consistency in support of biblical Creation as well.

• Homologous structures: Evolutionists argue that similarities in different life are every bit as much evidence for our relation to them as is our similarities to our human ancestors. It is true that if we are related to someone, we would predict there to be similarities between us (we share similarities with our parents, for example). However, as Darwin himself observed (see Geographic distribution above), similarities are often seen in species that clearly share no common ancestor. That concession begs the question: how do evolutionists really know which species are actually related and which are not? Similar bone structures between birds and dinosaurs, or chimps and humans, for example, do not necessarily suggest relationship. Could there be a different explanation? Actually, yes: there is a perfect explanation that fits the evidence better.
  
  If Creation, rather than evolution, is true, then similarities seen between different kinds would suggest a common Designer, rather than a common ancestor. Car manufacturers often use the same features and car parts on multiple models (e.g., tires, brake systems, windshield wipers, bolts, light bulbs, etc.), rather than “re-inventing the wheel” with each model. If a particular part has proven to be the most effective part and it can be used multiple times in other applications, it would be extremely inefficient of an engineer to use a different part or design a new part in all new designs. Car manufactures often even design their various car models with a similar “look” that distinguishes their brand from others.
  
  Similarly, one would expect God, if He is an efficient Engineer, to use similar structures in many life forms on Earth, since they were all designed to live on the same planet. Those designed to live in similar environments on Earth and do similar things would be expected to be even more similar than other species. Those creatures who would be breathing air would be expected to have similar lungs. Many of those creatures designed for swimming in water would be expected to have fins, and so on. If the same Designer was behind the different kinds of animals of the Earth, one would expect similarities between them—and, of course, there are.
  
  Which view—common ancestry or common design—fits the evidence better and more consistently? Several evidences could be highlighted which reveal the superiority of the Creation model in explaining the evidence, but let’s look at one. Recall again the above section on “Geographic distribution.” While similarities between those species living in the same relative environment—species that are distinctive from those found elsewhere—is admittedly suggestive of possible common ancestry (though, once again, not macroevolutionary ancestry), the second category of similarity observed by Darwin (i.e., creatures similar though not related) is a problem for macroevolution. In the case of descent from a common ancestor, the genetic potential for similarities between descendants is at least possible (though Someone would have to create the “heritable variation” in the first place), but when common ancestry has been ruled out, there is no means of creating the observed similar features between creatures. A common Designer, therefore, is the reasonable conclusion from the evidence for both of Darwin’s observations.51

Conclusion

Even if the Big Bang could create the Universe and explain away all of the inconsistencies we see when studying the cosmos, at some point, in order for biological evolution to occur, life had to come from non-life. If that feat was not difficult enough, that life had to be extremely complex—more complex than we might typically even realize. It had to have an operating program that told it how to function. It had to be able to replicate itself and be homochiral. It had to be equipped with the necessary genome to allow life to continue. That pool of genetic information had to be continually increased spontaneously over millions of years in order to allow that single-celled organism to turn into all of the species on the planet, ending with the genetically complex species we call homo sapiens. The pool had to increase in spite of the fact that there is no known way to spontaneously generate such information in a natural way.

With such facts established, it should come as no surprise to find that evolution has never been able to be substantiated by solid evidence. Its alleged evidences are always, without exception, erroneous, irrelevant or, at the very least, inadequate. Belief in evolution, therefore, requires one to hold a blind “faith” in a superstitious fairytale. It’s no wonder that the late Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, said about evolution, “One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me, or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory.”52

Endnotes

1 See Jeff Miller (2022), “Should Christians Accept Evolution and an Old Earth to Win Converts?” Reason & Revelation, 42[4]:38-44, April.

2 See Jeff Miller (2017), Science vs. Evolution (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), 2nd edition, pp. 9-38.

3 See Jeff Miller (2019), “21 Reasons to Believe the Earth is Young,” Reason & Revelation, 39[1]:2-11, January.

4 Ibid.

5 Biological evolution, macroevolution, and Darwinian evolution all refer to the theory that all species on the planet evolved from previous species, leading back to original common ancestors of all life.

6 Gerald A. Kerkut (1960), The Implications of Evolution (London: Pergamon), p. 6.

7 Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph Levine (1991), Biology (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall), p. 341, emp. added.

8 Ibid.

9 George G. Simpson and William Beck (1965), Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World), 2nd edition, p. 144, emp. added.

10 See Jeff Miller (2017), Science vs. Evolution (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), pp. 61-109.

11 George Wald (1962), “Theories on the Origin of Life” in Frontiers of Modern Biology (Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin), p. 187, emp. added.

12 George Wald (1954), “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191[2]:44-53, August, p. 47, emp. added.

13 Robert Hazen (2005), Origins of Life (Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company).

14 Paul Davies (2006), New Scientist, 192[2578]:35, November 18, emp. added.

15 John Horgan (2011), “Pssst! Don’t Tell the Creationists, but Scientists Don’t Have a Clue How Life Began,” Scientific American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-bu-2011-02-28, emp. added.

16 For an in depth study on the Law of Biogenesis and its implications, see Miller, 2017, pp. 61-109.

17 Fred Hoyle (1981), “The Big Bang in Astronomy,” New Scientist, 92:527, November 19, first emp. in orig.

18 Ben Stein and Kevin Miller (2008), Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Premise Media), emp. added.

19 John Keosian (1964), The Origin of Life (New York: Reinhold), pp. 69-70, emp. added.

20 Joe Deweese (2023), “Homochirality and the Origin of Life,” Reason & Revelation, 43[11]:122-124, November, emp. added.

21 See Miller (2017), pp. 61-109.

22 John Maddox (1994), “The Genesis Code by Numbers,” Nature, 367:111, January 13, emp. added.

23 Hugo De Vries (1905), Species and Varieties: Their Origin by Mutation, ed. Daniel Trembly MacDougal (Chicago, IL: Open Court), pp. 825-826, emp. added.

24 Stephen J. Gould (1980), “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?,” Hobart College speech, 2-14-80; quoted in Luther Sunderland (1984), Darwin’s Enigma (San Diego, CA: Master Books).

25 Stephen C. Meyer (2009), Signature in the Cell (New York: Harper Collins), Kindle file, Ch. 1, emp. added.

26 Werner Gitt (2007), In the Beginning was Information (Green Forest, AR: Master Books), Kindle file, Ch. 6.

27 For an in depth study of the problem of the origin of genetic information, see Miller (2017), pp. 111-132.

28 Lionel Ruby (1960), Logic: An Introduction (Chicago, IL: J.B. Lippincott), pp. 130-131.

29 See Kyle Butt (2022), Is the Bible God’s Word? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press); Dave Miller (2020), The Bible is from God: A Sampling of Proofs (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

30 Aaron O. Wasserman (1973), Biology (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts), p. 497; George G. Simpson and William S. Beck (1965), Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World), pp. 240-241; Erich Blechschmidt (1977), The Beginnings of Human Life (New York: Sringer-Verlag), p. 32; Sir Arthur Keith (1932), The Human Body (London: Thornton and Butterworth), p. 94.

31 W.R. Thompson (1956), “Introduction,” Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin (London: Dent, Everyman’s Library edition),  p. xvi; Jane M. Oppenheimer (1988), “Haeckel’s Variations on Darwin,” Biological Metaphor and Cladistic Classification, ed. H.M. Hoenigswald and L.F. Wiener (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press), p. 134; Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine (2006), Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall), p. 385.

32 As quoted in Malcolm Bowden (1977), Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? (Bromley, England: Sovereign Publications), p. 76.

33 George Gaylord Simpson (1953), Life of the Past (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press), p. 125, emp. added.

34 Stephen Jay Gould (2000), “Abscheulich! (Atrocious),” Natural History, 109[2]:42-50, March, paren. in orig., p. 45.

35 See also D. Raup (1979), “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 50[1]:24-25.

36 “Whales Descended from Tiny Deer-like Creature” (2007), ScienceDaily, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071220220241.htm.

37 Jeff Miller (2019), “Does the Fossil Record Support Creation and the Flood?” Reason & Revelation, 39[7]:74-80.

38 Colin Patterson (1979), Letter of April 10, 1979 to Luther Sunderland: reprinted in Bible-Science Newsletter, 19[8]:8, August, 1981, emp. added.

39 E.g., Stephen Jay Gould (1980), The Panda’s Thumb (New York: W.W. Norton & Co.), pp. 181-182.

40 “Ancient Four-Legged Beasts Leave Their Mark” (2010), Science on-line, January 6, http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2010/01/ancient-four-legged-beasts-leave-their-mark.

41 E.g., the ostrich, African Turaco, and young South American Hoatzin.

42 E.g., Ichthyornis [see  The Editors of Encyclopaedia, “Ichthyornis” (2020), Encyclopedia Britannica, March 4, https://www.britannica.com/animal/Ichthyornis.], Hesperornis [The Editors of Encyclopaedia, “Hesperornis” (2021), Encyclopedia Britannica, December 16, https://www.britannica.com/animal/Hesperornis.], Hongshanornis [Riley Black (2014), “Feathery Fossil Offers Insights into the Flight and Diet of an Early Bird,” National Geographic on-line, January 8, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/feathery-fossil-offers-insights-into-the-flight-and-diet-of-an-early-bird.], and Sulcavis [see Riley Black (2013), “Fossil Bird Had Tough Teeth,” National Geographic on-line, January 13, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/fossil-bird-had-tough-teeth.]. See also the descriptions of Deinonychus and Cryptovolans in “Feathered Dinosaurs and the Origins of Flight” (2024), Arizona Museum of Natural History, https://www.arizonamuseumofnaturalhistory.org/explore-the-museum/exhibitions/previous-exhibitions/feathered-dinosaurs-and-the-origins-of-flight. See also “Pictures: Giant Fossil Bird Found With Spiky ‘Teeth’” (2010), National Geographic on-line, September 16, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/100915-giant-bird-wingspan-science-chilensis-teeth-pictures.

43 E.g., Anchiornis (see Black, 2014) and Protoavis [see Sankar Chatterjee (1999), “Protoavis and the Early Evolution of Birds,” Palaeontographica A, 254:1-100].

44 Henry Gee (1999), In Search of Deep Time (New York: The Free Press), pp. 195,197.

45 In regard to human evolution in particular, typical inadequate evidences would include the lack of necessary transitional forms to substantiate Darwinian evolution [see Jeff Miller (2023a), “Does the Evidence REALLY Support Human Evolution? (Part 1),” Reason & Revelation, 43[8]86-88, August]. Other inadequate evidences would include human-chimp DNA similarities [see Jeff Miller (2023b), “Does the Evidence REALLY Support Human Evolution? (Part 2),” Reason & Revelation, 43[9]:99, September].

46 Hans Hansen (2015), “Fallacies,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/. 

47 Richard Dawkins (1989), “In Short: Nonfiction,” The New York Times, April 9, https://www.nytimes.com/1989/04/09/books/in-short-nonfiction.html.

48 Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine (2010), Biology (Boston, MA: Pearson), p. 472.

49 Steven Stanley (1977), Macroevolution (San Francisco, CA: Freeman), p. 39, emp. added.

50 In regard to human evolution in particular, typical irrelevant evidences would include the examples of species among the Australopithecines, which are now regarded as belonging on a side branch of the human evolutionary tree, rather than being our ancestors. Also included among the irrelevant evidences would be species from the genus Homo, which are generally all regarded as being varieties of human and, therefore, examples of micro-, not macroevolution  (see Miller (2023a), pp. 89-92).

51 In regard to human evolution in particular, typical erroneous evidences would include the many rash claims of transitional forms from the fossil record that have proved to be hoaxes and blunders (see Miller (2023a), pp. 88-89). Another erroneous evidence would include vestigial organs and genes, human-chimp chromosome fusion, mitochondrial DNA and “Eve” (see Miller (2023b), pp. 98-100).

52 Colin Patterson (1981), Written transcript made from audio tape of lecture presented at the American Museum of Natural History, November, emp. added.

Sc