# Question about something A.W. Pink said-GAP THEORY



## Jonathan (Dec 12, 2004)

I was reading Pink's Sovereignty of God... and I found something that I never have heard of before. In his chapter on the Sovereignty of God in Salvation, he said, concerning Gen. 1:1-2.

_"The original Hebrew here might be literally rendered thus: "And the earth had become a desolate ruin, and darkness was upon the face of the deep." In "the beginning" the earth was not created in the condition described in verse 2. Between the first two verses of Genesis 1 some awful catastrophe had occurred---- possibly the Fall of Satan--- and, as a consequence, the earth had been blasted and blighted, and had become a "desolate ruin", lying beneath a pall of "darkness". _ 

Could someone shed some more light on this? I don't know which section this would go under, hope this is the right one.

[Edited on 12-12-2004 by Jonathan]

[Edited on 2-16-2005 by joshua]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 12, 2004)

I'm surprised and disappointed to see this stuff coming from A.W. Pink. It sounds like a clear compromise with evolution known as Progressive Creation Catastrophic Theory which is intended to allow for an 'old earth.'




> Progressive Creation Catastrophic Theory
> 
> a. Between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2 an indefinite period of time passed during which the geological ages took place. During this time, the prehistoric creatures were created.
> 
> ...


----------



## Irishcat922 (Dec 12, 2004)

That must be from the unabridged version I don't recall that in the B.O.T. version.


----------



## Irishcat922 (Dec 12, 2004)

Someone told me about Pink one time that he was like a good steak, the meat is good but you have to throw out the bones.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 12, 2004)

It's also called the Gap Theory of Creation. 

See: http://www.layhands.com/GapTheory.htm


----------



## Jonathan (Dec 12, 2004)

I was just talking with my dad about this... and it seems like this is no small subject. I agree with practically everything I have read of his... but when I read that, it just stuck out like a sore thumb. I can see how he might (from the original Hebrew) formulate something like that... but I don't see the Scripture warranting anything of this nature... Love more feedback on this.


----------



## Irishcat922 (Dec 12, 2004)

That view from Pink is odd he was so much of a literalist, on so many other parts of Scripture.


----------



## Craig (Dec 12, 2004)

This is the GAP theory.

Personally, I find it interesting, everyone else tells me it's shoddy exegesis...since I know neither Hebrew or Greek, I won't be held liable if I'm wrong 

Anyways, the theory is that God in the beginning did create the heavens and the earth...satan (Lucifer) was on the earth and was involved with the worship of God with the angels...Lucifer became proud and led a rebellion, God then cursed the earth into chaos...whether that was for a day, a month, a year, a million years...we don't know. This doesn't imply evolution, rather, a curse, and during that time we would expect Lucifer becoming more and more calloused and hateful...then God reforms the earth out of chaos (in literal 24 hour periods for each day with no gap between the other days) and crowned it with man. Satan, out of hatred of God, tempts man to fall.

Overall, it makes sense, and helps me understand Satan's part in our Fall and helps me to see the cosmic aspect of spiritual warfare and God's sovereignty.

[Edited on 12-12-2004 by Craig]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Dec 12, 2004)

Craig,
I would have to say I agree with your above statement. I do remember this from Pink its in my copy from Baker. For me it seem's to explain the condition the earth was in before God reformed it. Because there was something there.

We cant unless thoroughly proven discount this as possible just like we cant say we are the only sole creation of God. 

God is to vast to understand outside of whats been revealed to us. It slike a grandfather tellings old war stories or other life stories revealing parts of who he is we but know little to which was revealed to us.

blade


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 12, 2004)

Here are some of the major problems that I have with the Gap Theory of Creation:

1) There is no _prima facie_ reason to posit a gap of any measurable time between the first two verses of Genesis. 

2) Gap theory originated in the 19th century as a reaction to the rise of the evolutionary theory of the origin of life to account for an old earth which the Bible does not otherwise suggest. It was popularized by the Scofield Bible, not the best source of exegesis, In my humble opinion.

3) It purports to account for the fall of Lucifer, and death entering creation, before the fall of man in Genesis 3 in direct contradiction to the teaching of Romans 5.

4) It forces one to conclude that the creation account in Genesis 1 is actually a _re-creation_ account. Under this theory, we don't have any Biblical data about the actual creation. 

Much more could be said. I commend the following article: 

http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-107a.htm


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 12, 2004)

Some Puritan board links:

Re-creation?

Days of Creation

Lucifer's Fall


----------



## Ranger (Dec 12, 2004)

Pink does the same thing in "Gleanings in Genesis." His reasons for the gap theory are not to allow for an old earth, but to basically create a situation where Satan fell to fit into the odd form of dispensationalism that he held to early in his ministry. Gleanings in Genesis presents all of his odd views concerning this subject in detail.

Here's a link: http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Gleanings_Genesis/genesis.htm


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Dec 12, 2004)

Thanks for the extra links Fred-How can we buy anymore books when we have to much of our own discussions to read? :bigsmile:


----------



## Jonathan (Dec 12, 2004)

I was talking to my dad about this and his view was the same as mine. It would be my view (though i never really have thought about this till now) that when it says without form or void (or however in the original Hebrew)... that God created a "canvas" for creation; then painted it. 

I was looking into the definitions and here they are:

Form: From an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), that is, desert; figuratively a worthless thing; adverbially in vain: - confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.

Void: From an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, that is, (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin: - emptiness, void.

It seems that these definitions suggest that it was a "blank page" that God created first, before He painted it with the rest of His creation.

I would view it like this:

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. (The beginning of the material realm, this was the laying of the foundations; the blank paper for the "painting") And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. (God starts "painting" on the "canvas"), etc. 

What are your opinions on this view?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 13, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Irishcat922_
> Someone told me about Pink one time that he was like a good steak, the meat is good but you have to throw out the bones.



Yup.

And sometimes you just have to stay away fromt he meat altogether - its been on the table too long and not in the fridge.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Dec 14, 2004)

It really seems that many giants of the faith from the 19th century on, have had problems compromising with various forms of non Christian creation ideas.


----------



## Augusta (Dec 15, 2004)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> It really seems that many giants of the faith from the 19th century on, have had problems compromising with various forms of non Christian creation ideas.



I know and it drives me nuts. My husband and I debated this very issue a few nights ago. He is leaning toward the long day theory. He *used to*




think of evolution as the way God accomplished creation. ( I am sure this has a title but I don't know it) I just think it is ludicrous to read into the text something different based on the wisdom of men. Men who may have stumbling over some data that tells them this or that. Scientists are constantly revamping their framework trying to understand this world and here we have the breathed word of the creator and no one believes it. They think they have to reconcile it with our known knowledge of the universe as if we can help the bible out. Now I can see seeker friendly christianity doing this to try to give credibility to the bible in order to induce people to believe, but it's just sad seeing it come from reformed people. I say, it says what it says, and the hoops you have to jump through to make it say something different ought to give people pause. Like the soul-less pre-adamite beings which Hugh Ross believes existed. One of our heros said something to the effect of "If God doesn't tell us about it, then I don't want to know it." Maybe someone will remember who and what I am talking about. It thinks its Edwards but I can't remember. I don't have to know what all happened with Satan and how exactly that all came down. God chose not to reveal that. That is all.


----------



## DTK (Dec 15, 2004)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> It really seems that many giants of the faith from the 19th century on, have had problems compromising with various forms of non Christian creation ideas.


Well, that is very true, and it underscores for us again that giants have their weaknesses, and that we all are often but "children of our times" in understanding. In his biography, _The Life of Arthur W. Pink_, Iain Murray informs us concerning Pink's literary output: "Comparatively little of what he wrote before the 1930's is of abiding importance and most of his earlier writings do not represent the outlook to which he came in his maturity" (p. 192). Murray goes on to quote Pink on some of his own misgivings, of which Pink said concerning one of his books, "It is the tendency of youth to be speculative..." (p. 192).

Having read this biography of Pink, I found his life somewhat depressing, although the account of his conversion from the cult of theosophy was well worth the price of the book for me. As for his shortcomings exegetically, I can only pray "God help me in all my labors." For if a giant can fall, can anyone be exempt?"

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## JasonGoodwin (Feb 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Irishcat922_
> ...



Gentlemen, I know that the answer may be staring right at me in the face, but can each of you explain your positions with regard to the statement that Brother Pink made? I'm confused.


----------



## Jonathan (Feb 2, 2005)

I believe in a literal seven day creation, which was the beginning of the world. Not what Pink says. He believes that our creation was a re-creation of a ruined world... ruined by fallen angels or something... So basically he believes that something happened between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. 
The theory that Pink has gives way for the possiblilty of millions of years between these two verses...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 2, 2005)

The Mosaic introduction to the Bible (Genesis 1-3) is part of the antedeluvian time period for "setting the stage". 

1) Heaven and Earth were cerated by God. (1:1)

2) Heaven and Earth were created by God (more detail - God makes "things" - the pinnacle of which is man) 1:2-2:4)

3) Heaven and Earth were created by God (more detail given with Adam and Eve and what God did with them) 2:5-3:1)

It is the same story, expanded and detailed three times.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Feb 2, 2005)

Evolution by itself is very easy to disprove. Exceedingly easy even from science. As a matter of fact it is absolutely absurd.

The time issue is more problematic.

The long day theories, missing geneologies, etc... do not bridge the gap. Because one cannot ignore the sheer magnitudinal differences between the Old Earth and Young Earth concepts. We are not trying to reconcile a few thousand or even a few 100,000 years here. The differences are in the magnitudes of billions verses thousands, trillions if one moves out to the universe. Simple long day theories and missing geneologies simply cannot bridge such a vast gap.

Plus, if you have a fossil record existing before the fall of man (which you would in an old earth model), then you have death existing before the fall of man. For the sedimentary "rock record" is based mostly upon the igneous "rock record" and superposition.

I believe in the young earth myself, though I've wrestled with it a LOT. Being a Geologist it kind of stares you in the face all the time. I think some of it goes to purpose and design. In other words God didn't "evolve" the elements either. That is to say; moving from simple H and He and slowly coagulating elements into the heavier and heavier elements (e.g. Pb, U, Au, Ag, etc..)

One of the best books on this subject is "Creation and Change" by Douglas Kelly.


----------



## Jonathan (Feb 2, 2005)

You know what else is problematic... Theologians who do not think the literal seven day creation is a good enough argument to combat the lie of evolution, and as a result of this they give way to theories, ideas, and thoughts that have no mandate spiritually or physically. Though much of what Pink wrote is masterful, it is important not to overstep the Bible and give way to ideas that have no reason for belief or even for consideration.


----------



## doulosChristou (Feb 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Irishcat922_
> ...


----------

