Larkin and Theistic Evolution

[Gary]

I just started reading "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth" By Clarence Larkin.

In Chapter 2 he discusses the three ages of the earth.

1. The Creative Age

2. The Ante-Diluvian Age

3. The Present Age

In the first point he speaks of the pre-adamic earth. He makes statements which lead me to believe he was a Theistic Evolutionist.

Attached in .pdf format is that section, which I obtained from SwordfSearcher.

Gary

[Daniel]

Brother I think this is just basic gap theory. Dr. Ruckman also teaches this and theorizes the period of time to be a maximum of about 2000 years, NOT millions or billions of years as the theistic evolutionist would teach to make their god line up with science (falsely so called). Believing in a gap does not automatically put a person into the "God-used-evolution" camp.

[Gary]

I am an idiot. Plz, this is not an easy thing to admit, but it is true. In the document I posted about Dr. Larkin being a Theistic Evolutionist. I just grabbed the section which I thought showed it. I hadn't read to the end of that section myself. Here it is in his own words how he felt about Evolution.

Quote:The creative work of the "Sixth Day" was twofold, that of land animals and of man. Ge 1:24-28.

These land animals were doubtless the same kind as we have today. The fact that they were created, "AFTER THEIR KIND," which is 5 times repeated, shows that they were not "evolved" from one common species. That all the different species of animals were created "separately" is proven from the fact that when species are crossed their offspring are sterile. The crossing of the jackass and a mare is the mule, and a mule is a hybrid and is sterile. If the "Evolutionary Theory" of the development of animal and vegetable life was true, we should expect to find evidence to that effect in fossil remains of the intermediate links, and we should also see "evolutionary processes" at work now whereby higher orders of animal and plant life are coming into being. But we see nothing of the kind. Animal and plant life exists today in the same form that it has existed in the knowledge of man. The birds build their nests and raise their young as they always did. The beaver builds his dam, and the bee constructs his honeycomb as they have always done. Man alone has the faculty of improving his mode of construction. This is seen in the development of farming instruments from the crude plow and winnowing fan to the complex plow and cultivator, and the combined reaper, binder, and thresher. But here we can trace the various steps by the obsolete specimens of farming implements. This is not true in the animal and vegetable kingdoms for there we find no intermediary links. If the Evolutionary Theory is correct, it should apply to man as well as animals, and we should see by the crossing of the best specimens of the human race the evolution of a SUPERMAN, but the history of the race disproves this.

That man was CREATED (Bara) A MAN shows that he has not descended from an "ape." Man was made in the "IMAGE OF GOD," not in the image of an ape, and was not formed from a brute but of the "Dust of the Earth." While Adam and Eve were not both fashioned in the same way, Eve being "builded" from a rib taken out of Adam (Ge 2:21-23), they were not evolved from some lower creature, but were both direct creations of God, "male and female CREATED He them." Ge 1:27.

I stand corrected and ashamed. This book is excellent. If you would like to read it on line here is a link to it on Googlebooks. Rightly Dividing the Word

[Steve Schwenke]

Gary, I believe you are correct. It seems Larkin was leaning that way. Dr. Ruckman doesn't at all. I think too many of our Baptist friends at the turn of the 20th century (from the 1800's to the 1900's) were in awe of all the modern "scientific" findings, and didn't really know what to do with them. Unfortunately, it would appear that Larkin got swept up into it also.

Also, Larkin's view on the "Let there be light" statement is that the sun was there, but there was darkness hiding it....

Well, he is human like the rest of us...

That is one of the very few places I disagree with Larkin on.

[Gary]

(05-04-2010 09:15 PM)Steve Schwenke Wrote:  Gary, I believe you are correct. It seems Larkin was leaning that way. Dr. Ruckman doesn't at all. I think too many of our Baptist friends at the turn of the 20th century (from the 1800's to the 1900's) were in awe of all the modern "scientific" findings, and didn't really know what to do with them. Unfortunately, it would appear that Larkin got swept up into it also.

Also, Larkin's view on the "Let there be light" statement is that the sun was there, but there was darkness hiding it....

Well, he is human like the rest of us...

That is one of the very few places I disagree with Larkin on.

Steve I am confused. Which of my posts in this thread are you referring to? One I stated he was leaning towards Theistic Evolution, but I later posted a correction of his position.

Gary

[Steve Schwenke]

(05-05-2010 05:36 AM)Gary Wrote:  Steve I am confused. Which of my posts in this thread are you referring to? One I stated he was leaning towards Theistic Evolution, but I later posted a correction of his position.

Gary

OK, the part you posted from Larkin is good.
The part that always stuck in my throat is from Dispensational Truth on the chapter "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth."
In it, he discusses and agrees with the Nebular Hypothesis, and denies that the Sun, Moon, and Stars were actually created on the 4th day.
I don't know if we could properly classify this as evolutionary thought, but it certainly is not Scriptural, at least IMO.

Here are some quotes:

Quote:In the year 1796 the astronomer La Place advanced the theory that the sun, planets and moons of our Solar System were once one vast spherical mass of nebulous or gaseous matter, out of which they have developed. He claimed that this mass of nebulous matter coming in contact with the cold of space began to contract, and in contracting a rotary motion was set up around its center, and the more rapidly it cooled the faster it revolved, until it became flattened at the poles and protruded at the equator, until it more resembled two watch crystals placed edge to edge than it did a round ball. As the cooling progressed, and the rapidity of revolution increased, a ring of matter was detached from the edge of the watch-crystal shaped mass, which still continued to revolve around the parent mass, which parent mass as it cooled shrunk away from the ring, and that this process continued until a number of rings were thrown off, all revolving in the same direction within each other and around the central mass. These rings of matter as they separately condensed were broken into fragments, and some of the fragments were retarded and others accelerated until they coalesced and formed a globe which continued to revolve in the same direction, the outermost ring forming the planet Neptune and the innermost Mercury. The central mass of this nebulous matter, after the rings had been separated from the parent mass, is now our sun.

Quote:The appearance of the sun and moon on the Fourth day was not a new creation. They had existed in connection with the Pre-Adamite Earth and had not been destroyed when it was made waste. The word translated "made" in the 16th verse is not the same word as is translated "created" in verse one, and does not imply a "creative" act. What is meant is that the clouds broke away and permitted the sun and moon to be seen, and that from that time they were appointed to measure the days, and years, and seasons as we have them today. In other words, on the Fourth day "Time" in contrast with "Eternity" began.

[William]

I hope and trust that Larkin wasn't an evolutionist, but I wouldn't bet the rent money on it either way. I do know that, as Schwenke says, he devoted an entire five page section of Dispensational Truth to proving the Nebular Hypothesis, and Schwenke has not quoted him out of context (Larkin even has a two-page diagram "illustrating" the Hypothesis). I agree that many "fundamentalists," in their heart of hearts, bend over backwards to accommodate "modern" scientific thinking, lest they be accused of being anti-intellectual. For a contemporary example of this unfortunate phenomenon, consider Kent Hovind, whose ministry has always left me just as cold as a cucumber, although I treasure him as a brother and despise his enemies.

Larkin corrected the King James Bible in his treatment of Gen. 1:16. Without copying the thing out, I refer anyone who's interested to footnote 5 on page 2 of the Ruckman Reference Bible, in which Rucklman refers to the Nebular Hypothesis as "anti-scriptural nonsense," and explains the urgent prophetic significance of the creation of the sun on the fourth day.

[worddigger]

In one of his books, Larkin also did a chapter on the structure of the great pyramid, concerning the details within its structure, that he claimed were linked to Bible prophecy. Although it was rubbish, the rest of the book was spot-on, Biblically speaking. Larkin was not an evolutionist. Dr. Ruckman has also published some rubbish remarks at times, but 98% of the time he is spot-on, as well. Ruckman is not a scientist. The important point is that both these men were/are true Bible believers and wrote as best as God had opened their eyes.

I'm sure that long after my book has been published that some readers will find some of my stuff to be rubbish, as well. But I also know that the majority of the work is AV 1611 Biblically solid. I think of any good book as a watermelon; plenty of meat, but even the best has those pesky seeds to spit out.

[Daniel]

(05-20-2010 10:31 PM)worddigger Wrote:  I think of any good book as a watermelon; plenty of meat, but even the best has those pesky seeds to spit out.

I like that.

An old hillbilly once said: When you read a book you need to at least have the brains God gave a chicken and know how to pick the corn out of the rocks. The problem is, some Christians ain't got the brains God gave a chicken.

[Laura]

(05-20-2010 11:15 PM)Daniel Wrote:  

(05-20-2010 10:31 PM)worddigger Wrote:  I think of any good book as a watermelon; plenty of meat, but even the best has those pesky seeds to spit out.

I like that.

An old hillbilly once said: When you read a book you need to at least have the brains God gave a chicken and know how to pick the corn out of the rocks. The problem is, some Christians ain't got the brains God gave a chicken.