God, Remission of Sin, and the Timing of Jesus’ Death

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Doctrinal MattersSalvation

Q:

When were the Old Testament saints forgiven—during their lifetime or after Jesus died on the cross?

A:

As finite beings, we are completely tied to time. We cannot even conceptualize existence without our conceptions being characterized by the transpiring of time. But such is not the case with God. God is not subject to time. He exists outside of time and is the Creator of time. Indeed, He is “the High and Lofty One Who inhabits eternity” (Isaiah 57:15). As this divine attribute relates to the question of salvation, God did not have to wait until the literal, physical crucifixion of Christ in order to forgive pre-cross peoples on the basis of Christ’s blood. The fact that pre-cross saints could not be forgiven without the blood of Christ did not mean that they were in some sort of spiritual limbo and unsaved until the cross. They could be saved at the time they lived on Earth—as subsequently made clear by their being placed in the Paradise portion of Hades.1 Perhaps, then, the old expression “sins were rolled forward” is inadequate to express Bible teaching on this subject.

Indeed, to speak of “the righteous in Hades”2 is an admission that they were saved (Luke 16:22-23). The mere fact that they were in Paradise demonstrates that they were already redeemed by Jesus. In fact, why have two separated areas—one for the righteous and one for the unrighteous—if both were yet unforgiven? The phrase “that they should not be made perfect apart from us” (Hebrews 11:40) stresses that their salvation was not disconnected from the salvation that those after the cross would receive. They were tied together based on the same divine sacrifice. Indeed, while the faithful were alive on Earth long before the cross, God reckoned them “righteous,” “pleasing to God,” an “heir of the righteousness which is according to faith,” and “look[ing] to the reward”—as indicated in Hebrews 11:4,5,7,26.

Critical verses that clarify this concept may be seen in Romans 3:25-26 and Revelation 13:8. The first passage, referring to Jesus, reads: “whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness.” In other words, God did not have to consider pre-cross saints as lost because He was able to forgive them, based on the blood of Christ, since His sacrifice was an inevitability. Neither Satan himself nor anyone else could thwart the eternal purposes of God. No wonder, then, that Jesus is described as “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8; cf. “before time began”—2 Timothy 1:9). Atonement, so far as God was concerned, was a “done deal” since He is not subject to time constraints. His eternality places Him above time and He could reckon forgiveness to the faithful even before the earthly, physical mechanisms were brought to fruition.

God used the physical hemoglobin that flowed through the physical body that He “prepared” (Hebrews 10:5) for Jesus to inhabit as the means by which He could count people forgiven—but that forgiveness occurred in God’s mind, not on a wooden cross in first-century Palestine. Neither the wooden cross and nails nor the physical hemoglobin possessed any intrinsic saving power—even as the waters of baptism do not. Yet Scripture declares that both “save.” But in what sense? Only in the sense that, in harmony with His perfect, infinite nature, God designates them as components of His plan to redeem people. Hence, “passed over” in Romans 3:25 does not mean they remained unforgiven. It means God forgave them based on the timeless, eternal sacrifice, thus demonstrating His justice in allowing them to be saved prior to the actual sacrifice. If, on the other hand, they remained unforgiven until Jesus died on the cross, then they should have been in the torment “compartment” of Hades and not in the Paradise portion. The timeless nature of God in handling man’s redemption is further seen in the fact that if Jesus’ blood could be shed for countless people yet unborn and sinless without regard to actual timing, why not also for those before the cross?

Hebrews

The writer of Hebrews provides crucial clarifications regarding what was needed to atone for sin, and that the blood of bulls and goats would not do it (10:4). But these technicalities were not divulged nor understood until the New Testament era. Old Testament saints could not have known these subtleties (1 Peter 1:10-11). Nor did they need to. But what they did need to know was that, if they manifested “obedient faith” (Romans 1:5; 16:26), they were saved (which is precisely what Hebrews 11 elaborates). Consequently, God provided ample reassurance to those who predated the cross of Christ that they were in a saved condition. Here is a small sampling of such indications:

• Leviticus 4-5 uses the expression “it shall be forgiven him/them” eight times to describe the condition of those Israelites for whom animal sacrifices were made.
• Numbers 15:25-26 states twice that the sin offerings would enable the “whole congregation” of Israel to be forgiven.
• In Psalm 103:12, David insisted: “As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us.”
• The prophet Micah declared: “Who is a God like You, pardoning iniquity and passing over the transgression of the remnant of His heritage? He does not retain His anger forever, because He delights in mercy. He will again have compassion on us, and will subdue our iniquities. You will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea” (Micah 7:18-19).

Perhaps a comparable, though admittedly inadequate, illustration would be the way we “pay our bills” every month. When, for example, we receive an electric/utility bill in the mail, we either sit down and write a check for the required amount, or we go online to the electric company website to pay the bill with a credit card. If we write a check, we place that check in a provided envelope, place a stamp on the envelope, and place it in a mailbox for the mailman to retrieve—who then takes that envelope to the central Post Office for sorting in order to redirect that envelope to the electric company. Upon arrival, a machine or employee opens the envelope, retrieves the check, and enters your payment into the system for you to receive credit for paying your bill. At that point, the check is again redirected (physically or electronically), this time to your bank, in order for the electric company to receive the actual funds that are represented by the check that you wrote on your bank account. The bank must then transfer those actual funds from your bank account to the electric company. Once the electric company receives those funds, your bill is actually paid. If you pay the bill online at the electric company website, you enter your bank account number from which the electric company draws your payment—a process that delays you receiving actual credit for having paid the bill.

Carefully observe that throughout this time-laden process, technical payment of your bill is not achieved until all the actions in the chain of events leading up to that payment come to fruition. Yet, when you wrote the check and placed the envelope in the mailbox, and your spouse asks you, “Did you pay the bills?,” you answer in the affirmative. Did you lie? Of course not. So far as you were concerned, you implemented the actions required on your part to fulfill your responsibility to pay the bills. You literally did all you can do to achieve that objective. And so it was with Old Testament saints. When they lived a life of “obedient faith” (Romans 1:5; 16:26; Hebrews 11; Habakkuk 2:4) before God, they were in a saved condition. That assured condition was based—in God’s mind—on the blood of Christ, regardless of the time frame and technicalities that God brought to fruition in His own ways and own time (cf. Romans 3:25; Galatians 4:4). All of the righteous—both alive and dead—are eagerly awaiting the Second Coming at which time we will receive the salvation for which He offered Himself: “And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him” (Hebrews 9:27-28, ESV).

To summarize: God did not have to wait for the actual, historical occurrence of the cross on Earth to forgive pre-cross saints. Like Christians today, when they lived a life of obedient faith, walking in the light, and acknowledging their sins and seeking forgiveness, they could be assured of their salvation.

Endnotes

1 Dave Miller, (2002), “One Second After Death,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/one-second-after-death-1188/

2 F.G. Allen (1886), “The State of the Righteous Dead” in The Old-Path Pulpit: A Book of Original Doctrinal Sermons (Covington, KY: Guide Printing & Publishing Co.), 1:274, emp. added.

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.

Session I: What is Evolution, and Why Does it Matter? video 32 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/session-i-what-is-evolution-and-why-does-it-matter-video-5293/ 

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided and enjoy.

MOKELE MBEMBE…A LIVING DINOSAUR?

 MOKELE MBEMBE…A LIVING DINOSAUR?

Deep in the dense, untamed jungles of central Africa, across regions like Congo, Cameroon, and Gabon, reports have persisted for generations of a mysterious creature. Eyewitnesses describe an animal with a long neck, a powerful tail, and rounded tracks marked by three claws. The closest known match to this description is not a modern animal, but a sauropod dinosaur. When locals in the Likouala region sketch what they have seen, they consistently draw something that mirrors the form of a sauropod. Even more striking, when shown images of these dinosaurs, they identify them directly as Mokele-mbembe. The name itself means “one who stops the flow of rivers,” and early European explorers, including a French priest, described it plainly as a monstrous animal.

Descriptions remain remarkably consistent. This creature is said to be comparable in size to a hippopotamus or even an elephant, with reported lengths ranging from 16 to over 30 feet, and in some accounts from Cameroon, even larger. Its long neck and tail, sometimes measured at several meters each, align closely with known sauropod structure. Some witnesses even report a distinctive frill or crest on the back of its head, similar in appearance to a rooster’s comb. Over the past two centuries, multiple expeditions into these regions have returned with similar testimonies. The consistency is not random. It demands explanation.

If such a creature were confirmed alive today, the implications would be massive. Not just for zoology, but for the entire evolutionary framework that insists these creatures vanished millions of years ago. Yet from a biblical creation standpoint, this presents no contradiction at all. Scripture tells us that all land animals, including dinosaurs, were created during creation week. Before the modern term “dinosaur” was coined, cultures around the world referred to these creatures as dragons, behemoths, and leviathans. Job 40 gives a direct description of behemoth, a creature whose features align far more closely with a massive, tail-swinging land giant than any modern animal.

According to the biblical record, animals were preserved on the Ark, likely as juveniles or eggs, and lived alongside man after the Flood. Over time, changing climates and human activity would have driven most to extinction. But in a world still filled with unexplored regions, it is not unreasonable to consider that remnants could persist in isolated environments. The reports surrounding Mokele-mbembe do not prove its existence, but they are far from empty stories. They are consistent, widespread, and rooted in real testimony. And they leave open a question that evolution struggles to answer, but Scripture already has.

Did Jesus Claim Godhood? Video 6 min.

https://apologeticspress.org/video/did-jesus-claim-godhood/ 

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

Did Dinosaurs Evolve Into Birds? Video 5 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/did-dinosaurs-evolve-into-birds/ 

Please click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

 

Where Did God Come From?

Eric Lyons

Bulletin ArticlesExistence of GodAtheismGod and Scientific LawsNature of God

Where did God come from? Most everyone knows the Christian’s response to this question: “God is eternal. He did not ‘come from’ anywhere.” Although atheists may think that this answer is unscientific and merely an attempt to avoid the question, in truth, observation and reason declare otherwise.

The question “Where did God come from?” (or “What caused God?”) assumes that God had a cause. However, by definition, an eternal spirit (“the everlasting God”) cannot logically have a cause. Asking about God’s cause (or origin) is as incoherent as asking “Why matter is eternal?” Matter is not eternal. Matter is no more an eternal essence without a cause than God is a physical being with a cause. Asking “where did God come from?” is like asking “when did eternity start?” By definition, eternity never began. Eternity, by definition, is without beginning and end. By definition, so is God.

Consider that in nature, matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed. Scientists refer to this observed fact as the First Law of Thermodynamics. Evolutionists allege that the Universe began with the explosion of a ball of matter 13 to 14 billion years ago, yet they never have provided a reasonable explanation for the cause of the “original” ball of matter. Evolutionist David Shiga made an attempt a few years ago in an issue of New Scientist magazine in his cover story, “The Beginning: What Triggered the Big Bang.” Interestingly, in the last line of the article, Shiga admitted: “[T]he quest to understand the origin of the universe seems destined to continue until we can answer a deeper question: why is there anything at all instead of nothing?”1 The fact is, a logical, naturalistic explanation for the origin of the “original” ball of matter that supposedly led to the Universe does not exist. It cannot exist so long as the First Law of Thermodynamics is true (that matter and energy cannot create themselves).

Since the physical Universe exists, and yet it could not have created itself, then the Universe is either eternal, or else some thing or some One outside of the Universe must have created it. Relatively few scientists propose that the Universe is eternal. In fact, there would be no point in attempting to explain the “beginning” of the Universe (with a Big Bang, for example) if scientists believed it has always existed. What’s more, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that matter and energy become less usable over time, has led scientists to conclude that the Universe has not always existed; that is, it is not eternal.2

So why don’t the laws of thermodynamics or the law of causality3 apply to God? Because these scientific laws, like all scientific laws, apply to what we find and study in nature. Again, by definition, God is not natural and thus logically is not subject to the laws of nature.

In short, if matter is not eternal, and it cannot create itself, then the only logical conclusion is that some thing or some One outside of nature (i.e., supernatural) caused the material Universe and everything in it. Christians call this Someone, “the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth” (Isaiah 40:28).

Endnotes

1 David Shiga (2007), “The Universe Before Ours,” New Scientist, 194[2601]:33, April 28.

2 For additional information on the Laws of Thermodynamics, see Jeff Miller (2013), “Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics,” https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?article=2786. 

3 This law states that “every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause.” For more information, see Jeff Miller (2011), Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Law of Causality,” https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=3716.

---

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.

 

Young People Leave the Faith Because They Believe Christianity is ANTI-Science

Kyle Butt, D.Min.

Bulletin ArticlesCulture Wa

David Kinnaman is the president of the widely known research organization Barna. One of his primary areas of work deals with research regarding Christianity. In his book You Lost Me: Why Young Christians Are Leaving Church…and Rethinking Faith he detailed several of the main reasons why 18-29-year-olds say they leave Christianity. In his list of six broad reasons young people leave their faith, the third reason he listed, based on the vast amount of research Barna has done on the topic, is that 18-29-year-olds believe Christianity is anti-science. He wrote:

Many young Christians have come to the conclusion that faith and science are incompatible. Yet they see the mostly helpful role science plays in the world they inhabit—in medicine, personal technology, travel, care of the natural world, and other areas. What’s more, science seems accessible in a way that the church does not; science appears to welcome questions and skepticism, while matters of faith seem impenetrable.1

He further noted that the research showed that 29% of 18-29-year-olds said that churches “are out of step with the scientific world we live in, while one-quarter (25 percent) described Christianity as anti-science.”2 He related the story of a Catholic man named Mike who became an atheist. Mike said: “It was tenth grade. I started learning about evolution. It felt like my first window into the real world. To be honest, I think that learning about science was the straw that broke the camel’s back. I knew from church that I couldn’t believe in both science and God, so that was it. I didn’t believe in God anymore.”3 Kinnaman summarized the research by saying: “Issues of science are one of the significant points of disconnection between the next generation and Christianity.”4

At Apologetics Press, we have known for over four decades that this is the case. We have listened to countless, heartbroken parents tell us how their faithful Christian children abandoned their faith in God for the more “honest, intellectual” approach presented by modern atheistic science. In truth, this tragic problem is one of the primary reasons Apologetics Press exists. Furthermore, this issue should cause every church leader, elder, preacher, parent, grandparent, and church member to ask themselves what can be done. Let’s look at several ways to approach the situation.

1. Recognize the Need to Teach on the Subject

Many people in the Lord’s Church grew up without being challenged by questions about how science and the Bible interact. Because of this, they do not recognize the fact that young people in the Church today are bombarded with information on a regular basis that demands that Christianity and science stand at opposite ends of the truth spectrum. The simple question that needs to be asked by every congregation of the Church is: What are we doing to help our young people understand the relationship between science, the Bible, and Christianity? What classes are scheduled to deal with the subject? What curriculum materials have we diligently assessed to be the most robust to deal with the issues? What special seminars or video series have we used (or plan to use) to help our youth through this very serious challenge to their faith? If the answers to these questions are, “nothing, very little, not much, and we don’t know,” then there is a good chance that many of the young people of that congregation will have trouble with their faith because of this unanswered challenge.

2. Teach the Truth: Science and the Bible are Compatible

The primary sentiment expressed by young Christians who leave the faith based on “science” is that science and the Bible cannot both be true. This is a false statement designed by Satan to force our young people to make a choice that should never be made. You can quickly see how sinister this approach is by comparing it to other false dilemmas.

• Do you want to be a thinking intellectual or do you want to be a Christian?
• Do you want to care about people and their rights, or do you want to be anti-choice on the abortion question?
• Do you want to love and be kind to people, or do you want to teach that God only saves those who believe in Jesus? 

Each of these ideas is presented as if only one can be true. When addressing the question of science and the Bible, we discover that real science and a proper understanding of the Bible always agree with each other. Dr. Michael Houts, who holds a Ph.D. from MIT and works for NASA, has written an excellent article on this subject titled: “True Science is the Christian’s Friend.”5 While most young people are taught by secular educational institutions that science and the Bible are incompatible, they have not been equipped with the truth that shows this idea to be false. An honest look at real science will always increase faith in the Bible.

3. Not All “Science” is Equal

The quote David Kinnaman included from Mike, the atheist, gives us insight into the real conflict. He stated that he started learning about evolution in 10th grade and that is when he realized that “learning about science was the straw that broke the camel’s back.” He equated evolution with science. Unfortunately he was not given the truth about the aspects of evolution that are  unscientific.6 Often the information that young people are being told is real science, is nothing of the sort. It is our job as Christians to show our youth the difference and give them the tools to distinguish between truth and error. We should be determined to send our young people into the world knowing that they must “test all things” and “hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). We cannot let them leave our congregations being so naïve as to think that everything an atheistic professor calls “science” is true science. There is a vast difference between legitimate science and false theories such as organic evolution, abiogenesis, and the inflationary Big Bang model.

4. Does Modern Science “Welcome Questions and Skepticism”?

Many of the young people who left Christianity in Barna’s research did so because they believed that “science appears to welcome questions and skepticism, while matters of faith seem impenetrable.” It is imperative that we show our young people the truth about this false idea. The brand of atheistic, evolutionary science that is taught in most educational systems today in no way welcomes honest inquiry. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Young people need to be shown the truth that all scientific discoveries and research that even mention the idea of intelligent design are rejected immediately.7 Valid scientific research that calls into question the billions-of-years time frame of modern geology is dismissed. Scientific discoveries that disprove the Big Bang model are “cancelled” quickly.8

In 2007, the world’s leading atheist—Antony Flew—published a book in cooperation with Roy Varghese titled: There Is a God: How The World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. Flew noted several times in the book that his life’s mantra was to “follow the argument wherever it leads.” He further confessed: “I reached the conclusion about the nonexistence of God much too quickly, much too easily, and for what later seemed to me the wrong reasons.”9 Flew proceeded in the book to document all the philosophical and modern scientific findings that drove him to the conclusion: “I have followed the argument where it has led me. And it has led me to accept the existence of a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being.”10 How do you think the atheistic, “scientific” community accepted Dr. Flew’s conclusion? In the preface of the book, Roy Varghese discussed the responses of those in the scientific community who once lauded Flew as a champion. He wrote: “Curiously, the response to the AP story from Flew’s fellow atheists verged on hysteria…. Inane insults and juvenile caricatures were common in the freethinking blogosphere…. The advocates of tolerance were not themselves very tolerant. And, apparently, religious zealots don’t have a monopoly on dogmatism, incivility, fanaticism, and paranoia.”11 Our young people need to know that the modern atheistic, “scientific” community is extremely welcoming and open to questions, as long as you arrive at exactly and only the conclusions that they have decided are “scientific.”12

5. They Will Have to Make a Choice

While our young people will never have to choose between real science and the Bible, they will have to make a choice. In today’s secular culture, the majority of educators, professors, politicians, and world leaders believe and teach falsely about the Bible and science. The vast majority of university professors are openly atheistic and many have made it their personal goal to destroy the Christian faith in their young students. Young people will be forced to decide if they love the truth more than error, and if they are willing to stand for the truth even when such a stand will cost them something. The modern geological community has adopted a billions-of-years time frame that does not rest on robust science. If a young person wants to be a geologist today, he or she will be pressured to adopt this same time frame, in spite of real, scientific evidence that militates against it. If young people do not toe the modern “scientific” party line, they may find that universities and jobs that offer geology degrees and opportunities will not even let them into their programs. Ultimately, our young people will have to choose between believing the truth, and sacrificing the truth because they want something more, such as recognition, acceptance, academic advancement, or to be viewed as part of the intellectual elite.

The New Testament gives us an excellent example of this dilemma. In the book of John, the author presents many evidences that prove that Jesus is the Son of God. The miracles He performed and the prophecies He fulfilled verified the truth of His claims. So convincing were these evidences that the text says, “Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him” (John 12:42). Their “belief,” however, was of little value to them. The text continues, “but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God” (John 12:42-43).

Our young people will be faced with a choice: not the choice between science and the Bible. The choice is between truth and error. Have we given them the foundation that adequately prepares them to stand for the truth when the rest of the world pressures them to believe a lie? As Jesus bluntly put it: “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world,… therefore the world hates you” (John 15:18-19). Let us not be so naïve as to think that Satan has infiltrated politics, sports, business, and most media outlets but somehow has left modern “science” alone.

Endnotes

1 David Kinnaman (2011), You Lost Me: Why Young Christians Are Leaving Church…and Rethinking Faith (Grand Rapids: Baker), pp. 92-93.

2 Ibid., p. 136.

3 Ibid., p. 138.

4 Ibid., p. 132.

5 Mike Houts (2011), “True Science is the Christian’s Friend,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/true-science-is-the-christians-friend-3572/.

6 Mike Houts (2007), “Evolution is Religion, Not Science,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/evolution-is-religionnot-science-part-i-2299/.

7 Kyle Butt (2008), “The Catch-22 of Peer-Reviewed Journals,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/the-catch-22-of-peer-reviewed-journals-2508/.

8 “An Open Letter to the Scientific Community,” https://www.plasma-universe.com/an-open-letter-to-the-scientific-community/.

9 Antony Flew and Roy Varghese (2007), There Is a God: How The World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: Harper Collins), pp. 12-13.

10 Ibid., p. 155.

11 Ibid., p. viii.

12 Kyle Butt, “Freethought: Not so Free After All,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/freethought-not-so-free-after-all-926/

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.