Scripture Memorization: Real Victories and Struggles

Scripture Memorization: Real Victories and Struggles

Yes you can memorize your very own Bible.  Yes you can do it in different sizes and portions.  Some people memorize very easily.  For others, it is a more intense struggle.  But I would guarantee that for many that say they struggle with scripture memory they can memorize other things (when they want to).  Ask about ball teams, stats, video games, magazine characters, tv and movie characters and/or plots.  If they can rattle these off then its not a memory problem.  The problem then lies with desire and dedication is simply willingness.

If you want to memorize a verse then work at it.  If you want to memorize a chapter then work at it.  If you are dedicated enough to memorize entire books of the Bible (which is possible) then work even harder at it.  One clause at a time, one verse at a time, and eventually entire chapters and books will follow.

It doesn't have to end with some kids club or a question/answer catechism.  Sure memorize lots of doctrinal proof texts.  But why stop there?  Memorize verse for counseling and encouragement.  Add in the ones to protect you from doctrinal error or drifting.  Be securely founded in scripture.

I would suggest there are passages that both imply and directly teach the value of hiding or placing scripture into your hearts.  Here's a couple below:

Ps 119 provides the motivation for hiding God's word, to avoid sinning.  

Jn 17 provides scripture as the means of sanctification (yes, an ongoing process), "sanctify them with thy truth."

James 1 and 2 Cor 3 provide the value of molding, shaping and changing us into his perfect image.

I would plead with you to spend time memorizing your Bible.  Not just reading it.
Both reading and praying scriptural content helps.  But actually and actively engage your mind and heart in the scriptural memorization process.  

Let's consider some detractors or discouragers to this process.

So may call daily Bible reading or prayer legalism.  Ignore them.  Read your Bible.
The same may call memorizing your Bible with the same ad hominem jargon.  Memorize your Bible.
Some may say its of no value.  Memorize your Bible and grow.  
Give the Holy Spirit tools to mold, shape and grow you into the perfect image of Christ.
In the hard times, the Holy Spirit can drawl back to mind scripture in times of temptation and trial. But it won't be there if you never take time to put it in.

You have the time in your schedule.  What is more important?
Have fun memorizing God's word.  Hope this helps some.  Comments as always encouraged.

Martyrs and Confessors: Attacks come from within and outside Christ's Church

Martyrs and Confessors: Attacks Come from within and outside Christ's Church

I was reading this Lord's day morning an article on the history of Christ's church in the second century ("Twenty Centuries of Church History, "The Reformation Heritage Study Bible, p. 1944).  It is readily apparent that the church has not come far from the second century.  We still have the same problems within and without the church today.  However, the problems are only expanded upon with the invention of printed media and now internet, blogs, websites, and iphones.

The church history article describes two major problems facing the church in the second century.  First, is the problem of blatant persecution.  This is a systematic or outright attack on God's people.  My friends, this will only get worse in the days ahead.  Christians businesses are attacked.  Churches are be attacked for marriage and building use issues.  Employees are attacked and jobs lost for not participating in their employer's sanctioned events.  Hebrews 11 mentions many generations who were attacked, persecuted, and even killed for the sake of Christ's name.  First Peter repeatedly mentions the concept of suffering for both good and evil.  If we are to suffer and be persecuted then let it be for doing right and not evil in God's eyes (society is rapidly redefining God's ways and evil and the world's ways as good).

The second problem is from within the church.  This is the problem of false teaching.  False teachers remain to this very day.  They take many shapes, forms, and charismatic personalities.  They have small and large followings and have deceived many.  False teaching takes many forms but there are three primary ways in which false teaching exists today.

The first way is through doctrine.  This is simply heterodoxy.  The second way is through wrong works, fruit, and actions.  This is heteropraxy.  The third false means is through false emotions and affections.  We'll call this heteropathy.  So there you have it, the three false ways our church is attacked from the inside: false doctrine, false living/practice, and false affections/desires.

All three of these can take many forms.  But let's start with some simple questions:  How would you identify them?  What biblical grid or worldview would you use to identify these three categories?  Add this to the equation, when in history was your conclusion correct?  Has it always been this way?  Who acknowledges certain categories but not the others?  Every wonder why they don't acknowledge the other categories?

Is it possible to believe the right doctrines but to live a sinful and worldly lifestyle (and to encourage others to do likewise)?

Is it possible to practice all the right and godly ways and yet to believe all the wrong doctrinal truths?

Is it possible to have a correct doctrine or practice but to habitually expose yourself and others to sounds, behaviors, and sources that damage your desires and affections?

History is not all that far behind us.  The second century had their specific problems with Christian persecution and false teaching.  We have our own today.  May God give us grace to persevere through the days ahead and give us discernment to see and avoid false doctrine and practice.

Hope this is helpful to some.  As always comments encouraged.

Why Did God punish Nebuchadnezzar? Is there a Lesson for Our Nation?

Why did God punish Nebuchadnezzar?  Is there a Lesson for Our Nation Today?

God did not leave the reader without a motive for his actions.  There is no question and no doubt.  Three times God tells us why he punished Nebuchadnezzar.  Of course his human pride is sin and deserving of punishment.  But why was he punished?  Notice the text of scripture from Daniel chapter four:

Verse 17, "to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men."

Verse 25, "till thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whom he will."

Verse 32, "until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will." 

Again in chapter in 5:21,  "till he knew that the most high God ruleth in the kingdom of men, and that he appointeth over it whomsoever he will."

Did you catch the repeating patterns?  Simply put "that...may know."  There is a certain content of knowledge both in person and works which God is intent that all the earth has knowledge.  What two things?  First, God is in absolute control.  He rules as an unrivaled monarchy without democracy or reelection.  Second, He alone tears down and sets up earthly rules according to his own purposes.  He gives countries the leaders they have.  One means by which he does this (at least in our country) is through democratic elections (insert electoral college system).  God has a purpose for what he does and what he allows to happen.  Use whatever adjective you need to for defining the second part (permissive, decree, etc...).

My question is simple:  Is there a parallel for our country in this upcoming election?  Has our country failed here?  Our nation is prideful and rejects the authority of God.  I say this as a soldier who has served our country for nearly fourteen years.  I'm not just an army chair quarterback or a "if I were in charge" opinion creator.  It is saddening to see where our country is heading.  I pray for my children because of the culture they will have to live in and raise their children.

Consider our country:

Want to kill a baby?  Inconvenient?  Redefine life (even the medical folks can get on board).
Want to marry anyone?  Simply redefine marriage (even the lawyers and judges will get on board).
Want to restrain opinions?  Create politically correct speech. Sensor the other's opinion.  Punish for "hate" speech.  Relabel all opinions contrary to your own as "hate" speech.

Do you want leadership that approves or practices the above?  Your choice.  Your vote.

Our nation as whole is in trouble.  Our democratic government has produced what we have now and what or who controls the future of our country.  Just to be clear the format of government does not necessarily produce a better moral product.

I don't mean all doom and gloom but our nation is not on a good course.  Perhaps God needs to completely humble our country.  How will he do it?  What might he do?  Who will he put in charge?  Only God knows.  He will glorify himself.

Hope this helps some.

Comments of course as always encouraged.

Church Membership: Some Practical Considerations for Local Churches (Part Three)

Church Membership: Some Practical Considerations for Local Churches (Part Three)

Part One          Part Two

If you are new to this short three part series allow me to quickly review.  First, we discussed the historical nature and practice of church membership as observed and taught by the London Baptist Confession and Westminster Confession of Faith.  Second, we discussed the Biblical texts employed to teach the practice of church membership.  In this article I would like to provide some practical suggestions in relation to this important topic.


Suggested Guidance

 I think the route to go if people want to be honest is the legal protection route toward church members. We don't need a roster of names added to a visible church institution (unless it is simply a safeguard for who is allowed to vote).  Even this line of reasoning is not completely consistent if you can join a church at 17 but not vote till 18.  

What we want is a list of names who agree to a common doctrinal position and manner of living.  In essence, they agree to the same church covenant.  They agree to be disciplined by the church for failure to believe and practice these things.  The sad reality is that Christians actually seek legal repercussions for being church disciplined.  A roster of names who are willing to be disciplined helps to provide this legal protection.  It is this same roster in most churches that allows one to vote in local church elections and participate in decision making (at least for those 18 years and older).  On the other hand, it is just as possible for a local church pastor to abuse this church discipline concept toward church members.  

In conclusion, I would argue the church membership position is eisegesis.  I would also suggest that there is no text teaching prescriptively or descriptively (with sound exegesis) any doctrine known as local church membership.  I would further argue that the Bible teaches an individual becomes part of the universal church through faith and repentance in Jesus Christ, of which the only visible manifestation is the local church.  The topic known as church membership falls into the category of application.  This application applies only in a local church and has no authority in or over the members of any other local church.  Hence, you either join one local church or another individual local church (both of which are autonomous).

As to reasons why an individual should join or leave a local church is another question.

Some questions for thought:

Do I have to be a church member to serve? teach? preach? teach Sunday school? provide Music?
Do I have to be a church member to grow? Read my Bible? Pray? Make Disciples?
Do I have to be a church member to submit to other believers? Pastor/Elders? 
Do I have to be a church member to be committed? Regularly attend?
Do I have to attend for a certain length of time before joining?  Attend special classes?

Let's take the reverse to these questions (just to make the point more clear):

There are many church members who don't and never will serve.
There are many church members who don't and never will teach or preach.
There are many church members who will not sing, either corporately or individually.
There are many church members who rarely read their Bible (systematically or sporadically).
There are many church members or who rarely pray or make disciples.
There are many church attenders (non-members) who attend more often or regular than the actual church roster members.

See the difference?  The opposite motive to using these as arguments just doesn't make sense.  This is not a biblical argument.  They may serve as motives someone wants to join a church but this is not the same as a prescriptive command to join a local church.   

Hope this helps some on this issue.  Comments of course as always encouraged.

If you disagree or have constructive push back with this line of reasoning, then provide me a Bible verse anywhere that teaches a different historical and exegetical position.  History provides us two camps: regenerate members (those who have made a profession) and non-regenerate members (those who have not personally made a profession). Its that simple.  Either way, who will you practice church discipline? Allow to the ordinances/sacraments? Voting and elections?  There are bigger issues that church membership does not exactly solve (perhaps they apply only for your own local church covenant and bi-laws). 

If there are any verses written in any text on this issue that could change these conclusions, then I would be glad to know.  There are many current books and journal articles addressing this issue.  I applaud the ones that take church discipline and voting seriously (I personally recommend the ones written by IX Marks ministry, Captiol Hill Baptist Church, Senior Pastor Mark Dever).  If you find a good church that is trying to be biblical both in doctrine and practice then join, especially if you want to vote.

Church Membership: What do the Scriptures have to say? (Part Two)

Church Membership: What do the Scriptures have to say? (Part Two)

Part One

Biblical Authority

How has the church viewed relevant texts on this issue?  For starter, what are the relevant texts and categories in this issue?  If you noticed the historical discussion in the previous article, then it should be obvious that an entirely different set of biblical proof texts are used to support either one.  That being said, if we are looking for different proof texts, then we most likely have a different understanding for church membership.  

So with little comment, I'll simply list some of the verses I've seen used in print to prove both these points.  I leave it up to you the reader to discern whether they actual say church membership or are they being used to create this concept.  Many of these verse are the proof texts directly appealed to by these two previously mentioned London Baptist Confession and the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Just as reminder, each historical document will need to supply proof texts supporting their position.  So for example, the LBC 1689 will need to supply proof texts showing that an act of conversion (both faith and repentance) happen prior to the ordinance of water baptism and church membership.  On the other hand, the WCF 1647 will make room for an act of conversion for church membership but they also must provide proof texts that show their children can become church members based on the parent's faith or an ordinance of water baptism (prior to child's own exercising of saving faith).

I ask the discerning reader: Do the quoted verses from each historical document actually teach church membership?  Do they expand on the definition?  Do we perhaps have a different definition of this idea today?   Or is it possible that church membership is an application of various scriptural texts?

Concerning the inclusion of children into church membership, the WCF uses some of the following as proof texts:

Acts 2:38-29, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remisson of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.  For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

1 Corinthians 7:14, "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy."

To be honest the vast majority of references found within the WCF are to identify a universal catholic church and the association of "particular churches" to this church.  Apart from this concept the WCF actually says very little on the topic of church membership. 

Concerning the relevant texts in the LBC 1689, please consider the following:

The LBC in paragraph four identifies members of churches as those called saints.  Texts listed are Ro 1:7 "called to be saints" and 1 Cor 1:2 "called to be saints" and "to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus."  The vast majority of references are to the concept of church discipline passages and the selection of bishops and deacons.  The following verse often quoted for church membership doesn't even appear: Hebrews 10:25, "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is."  But to be fair and honest the WCF did not include this verse either in ch. 25 "Of the Church."

Apart from verses like these just listed above there's not much addressing this issue. 

There are also other attempts made to prove local church membership.  None of which are appealed to directly by either historical document to present a need for or to help justify the necessity of church membership.

Please understand, I do not mean to use the following as "straw man" arguments.  I also do not mean to demean the proponents of these positions.  I simply want people to realize what ground or reasoning is used (even by PhD level individuals) in an attempt to extract church membership from the text of scripture.

First, there is the one another argument as if you can't truly care and minister to those if your not a church member.
Second, there is the pastor controls the membership argument.  You can't join us unless you give us the authority to say when you can leave or not.  Related to this argument is the "pastor has an obligation" argument.  This one takes shepherd references and creates a church membership roster (that is, those who are to be shepherded). 
Third, there is the guarding the table argument. You can't observe the Lord's table (communion) if you're not a member of our church.  This has been a strong historical motivator for the Roman Catholic church to force people to join their church.  The argument is further raised when an individual needs their ordinance (sacrament) so you can go to heaven.  Get it: join our group or you can't go to heaven.  Protestants can be just as guilty of this making people feel guilty or questioning there salvation for not being in agreement on this issue.  I would suggest the WCF has not moved that far from this position.  But I'm sure the vast majority would not want to take it this far.
Fourth, is the widow roster argument.  This argument takes the "widow indeed" list from the pastoral epistles and uses it as a precedent (or actual proof) to create a church membership roster as well.

My intentions were to show from a position of biblical authority the doctrine and practice of church membership.  You can read the verses and evaluate for yourself.  Does the scripture either prescriptively or descriptively teach church membership?  Again, if it does not then why do we have church membership? 

On the other hand, if you are strongly convinced you need to join a local church.  Our family has joined and served in many churches over the years.  If you feel so led then go and do so.  I will follow up this article with suggests and practical issues related to church membership.

Hope this helps some.  Comments of course encouraged as always.

Again, if I have left something out or one of your key verses you go to on this issue pleas let me know.  

Church Membership: Church History and Biblical Authority: Roots and Abuses Part One

Church Membership: Church History and Biblical Authority (Roots and Abuses)

Introduction

For many local church denominations this is practically an issue of salvation importance.  For others its just a practical matter for determining who is allowed to vote.  Perhaps in other churches its a safe-guard for practicing church discipline in a current (legal-overload) culture.  My goals for addressing this matter are simple: first, a discussion of the historical background in this issue; second, an overview of the actual Biblical data that is used to support this discussion, and lastly, to provide suggested guidance to those looking to join a local body of believers (which might have to wait).

I would ask this question up front: Is there any text in scripture that either prescriptively or descriptively, with sound exegetical academic honesty teaches church membership?  Please note the question is not whether there is a local church, or epistles written to a local church, or people reading a letter written to a local church.  Please note also the question is not whether people attended a local church or synagogue.  Please note third and lastly, the question is not whether you attend faithfully each week at a local church (whatever the number of services your local church has).  Our historical and exegetical focus must be to discern why we have church membership.  Related to this issue: its purpose, function, meaning, advantages/disadvantages, legal issues, and of course biblical not cultural warrant.

For these tasks to be accomplished several basic terms need to be reviewed (or for many folks simply introduced to for the first time).  The first term is exegesis.  Exegesis put simply is providing a simple meaning for what the Biblical text actually says.  We do this by viewing a text with the lens of a literal, historical, and grammatical method.  There are many other terms we could use which are mentioned in multiple textbooks discussing this topic of exegesis (for both the Old and New Testaments).  Put simply let the text speak don't import your ideas, thoughts, and presuppositions into the text.  Sad though is that many well-known writers have reverted to straw men tactics, ad hominem, and red herring attempts to push their views.  

The second term is eisegesis.  Eisegesis put simply is not saying what the text says but saying what I think or want the text to say.  This is reading your own views, motives, and/or presuppositions into a text.  This is looking for evidence in texts to support your own ideas or preferences.  Put simply exegesis keeps the text as the authority and eisegesis makes the interpreter the source of authority.  This could be simply a lack of willingness to study a passage in depth or perhaps even being a product over our "I think it means...." church culture. 

The third word I want to mention is the term church.  For some this term has great value and for others they go to great lengths never to use it.  Simply take note of the signs on buildings and how they identify themselves to the world around them.  Do we understand this term universally or locally?  Can it be both?  Do we deny one because some abuse the term?  Do we understand it to be made up of believers, unbelievers or both? Can you be a member of one and not the other?  Is the process the same or different?  Are any ordinances or processes involved to be part of one and not the other (or even both)?  How does our understanding of church discipline apply in relation to our definition of these terms?  Chances are how you answer these types of questions is determining the value or weight church membership is to you.  It also may exhibit how you have applied or been taught concerning the relevant texts on this issue.  

A note of caution here is necessary.  I would suggest neither of these categories fall into a another concept of current cultural application.  This is also a huge issue today.  How do I make at text that is at least 2000 years old (or older for the OT) relevant and applicable to me in my life right now?  How does it effect my life now?  Are there applications that can or should extend into any culture?  Is this even possible?  Does this area only apply in the realm of personal application or is it legitimate to say some texts may actually have a corporate application (this means beyond just me)?

Church History 

How has church history handled this issue?  Has it been equally addressed by Protestants, Roman Catholics, or perhaps cults like (JWs, LDS)?  Where has church history brought us today? I would suggest historically there have been two basic options and the fruit we see today is the result of these two basic choices: internal and external.  Both views directly effect the church's view of ordinances such as baptism and the Lords Table, as well as its view on voting/elections and church discipline (or even participation in the public arena). 

First, the internal church view, defines church membership based on some form of credible evidence of an expressed faith by the individual.  Historically this has also produced terminology such as "a regenerate church membership."  For a historical perspective on this we will turn to the London Baptist Confession (Ch. 26, "Of the Church").  They refer to individuals as "members of these churches." (paragraph 6). This membership is based on the fact that they are "saints by calling" and "by their profession and walking" (para. 6).  So both times the LBC 1689 makes a point of a fruit-bearing faith ("visibly manifesting and evidencing").  This is simply an example of how historical church "membership" has been viewed from the standpoint of a prior-exercised faith in Jesus Christ.

Second, the external church view, defines church membership based on a geographical basis.  This view is closely associated with a corporate view of both election and baptism, both of which place the individual as part of the local church (if not also part of the universal church as well).  For a historical example of this concept we turn to the Westminster Confession of Faith (Ch. 25, "Of the Church").  I believe the differences here from the LBC are significant because it changes the concept and entry point of church "membership." Please note some significant variations, ( para. 2), "the visible church, which is also catholic or universal." But who is included in this visible/catholic church?  Add the next line, this membership is comprised of those "that have professed the true religion; and of their children."  Did you catch the distinction?  Later (para. 3) they use this same designation "this catholic visible church."  Again this concept is repeated (para. 4), "particular churches, which are members thereof."  Member of what?  Go back to the first line, "this catholic church."  This expanded definition is because you don't have to be regenerated because here being a member can include, "both to mixture and error" even to the extent in reference to error "as to become no Churches of Christ."  Why is this significant?  Chapter 28 expands on who can be a church member, "admission of the party baptized into the visible church."  So under this system it is possible (though highly unlikely) to have many in your local church membership who have never exercised personal faith in Christ.

Note the difference between the two historical documents.  The first based church membership solely on a profession of faith.  The second based church membership on an external activity.  This second view could also be through a regional or parental association, not necessarily through expressed faith of the individual.  They still are called "members"of the church. 

Historically we need to cover at least one more area.  This category of church membership is known as the Half-way covenant.  What is this?  Let me try to explain.  Let's say two parents come to faith in Christ and are members of a local church.  Now they want to have their children baptized in hopes they will one day exercise faith themselves.  These children grow up to be adults, get married, never profess personal faith in Christ, but now they want to have their own children baptized.  See the scenario change.  Now we have unsaved church members wanting to have their children baptized.  Introduce now the Half-way covenant.   So now you have a semi-church member who potentially can't vote or receive from the church ordinances (or to them sacraments).  Issues like this one are no small matter.  Read your history.  American pastors in our own church history have lost their pulpits on this one. 

To be fair many Baptist churches (but not all) practice different forms of this only without the label.  I've seen multiple churches vote people into membership (in good faith they are going to be baptized).  One step removed from this, children can exercise faith and be baptized but then not allowed to vote on church business till they are eighteen years old.  Not sure where this one comes from biblically.  So are these children members or not?  What then would be the motivation for any child (in these churches) to be a member if they are explicitly denied the privilege of voting.  Sorry the American voting system is not biblical proof for making them wait till 18 to vote.  Any ideas here? 

This is a basic history article laying the foundation for how churches have throughout church history practiced church membership.  So if you find a church you fit into in both doctrine and practice then join their membership.  There are many books written by proponents of both sides on this issue.  Both have their championed verses and motivations. 

Hope this helps some.  Comments encouraged as always.  As I find new historical data supporting each position I will update this article.

From here we will turn to our next article examining the actual Biblical data on this issue.

Evangelical Study Bibles: A Last Evaluation and Warning concerning evolutionary compromise

Evangelical Study Bibles: A Last Evaluation and Warning concerning evolutionary compromise (simply: why they don't believe in a literal 24-hour, six day creation week and a young earth)

This small three part series has investigated the introductory notes and verse comments found with several well-known evangelical study Bibles.  By way of review we have previously covered the following list of study Bibles: The MacArthur Study Bible, The Reformation Heritage Study Bible, The Zondervan Study Bible (KJV Edition), the Ryrie Study Bible, the ESV Study Bible and lastly the Reformation Study Bible.

As has been shown there is a dramatic pull or push (which ever is worse) within new evangelical circles to present nearly every possible position on the creation account of Genesis chapter one.  Whether motivated by a broader audience appeal from particular publishing houses or simply a desire to be a respected scholar within the new evangelical sphere is besides the point.  What matters is that people read these study notes from these well-known and influential writers and walk away believing it doesn't matter.  In essence, these modern new evangelical "scholars" have redefined historical doctrine and made it of secondary importance.  Worse case (in this new way of thinking) it has not effected the content of the gospel (which in the end is all they want you to believe is important).  I would challenge you to produce a list of theological journal articles which actually support and defend a literal 24-hour, six-day view of the creation account found in Genesis One.  If and when you are actually able to produce a list take note of the journal and the date when it was published.  New evangelicalism does a very good job keeping these articles from appearing in print.

Today in this last episode concerning the view of creation found within study Bibles we shall review three remaining sources: the NET Bible, the Apologetics Study Bible and lastly the Archaeological Study Bible.

First is the NET Bible from Biblical Studies Press (2006).  This is a lesser known study Bible, the notes located within it appear to be more focused on translation and exegetical concerns.  Most study Bibles do not comment on manuscripts, variants, and various other details such as case uses and grammatical sentence structure.  Concerning the NET Bible comments on 1:1, "If the first view is adopted, then we have a reference here to original creation; if the second view is taken, then Genesis itself does not account for the original creation of matter."  In relation to these two positions later on in the notes they comment, "This second view presupposes the existence of pre-existent matter."  How then do they evaluate this alternative in the notes, "The following narrative strongly favors the second view..."  Did you catch that detail?  Pre-existing matter prior to creation and this is the favored view.  Please let me know if I am wrong and misunderstood this.  I'll gladly make correction to be academically correct and honest.

Well, on to the Apologetics Study Bible.  They list in their notes on page four, "Both sides believe they have strong arguments favoring their interpretation and rebutting the other side."  Ultimately, they take no position and offer no rebuttal for any position.  They are at least willing to acknowledge theistic evolutionists have sold out to Darwin, "those who accept evolution as God's mechanism in creation."  They simply don't understand the issues at stake and allow evolutionary scientists to define what "science" is and don't question it, "Some YCs accuse OCs of compromising the Bible with evolutionary science.  Some OCs charge YCs with undermining biblical credibility by generating a false conflict between science and the Scriptures."  Can you read what they are saying about broader new evangelical scholars?  Since OCs refuse to question the unbelieving views of evolutionists, everyone who opposes their accommodating Biblical interpretations is a trouble maker.  The end of their section really sums up the views of broader evangelical's refusal to take the text at face value, "even if the correct interpretation of the creation days is not readily apparent in the present generation."

Lastly, we shall discuss the Archaeological Study Bible.  The back cover explicitly identifies it as a joint project with Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.  It's main editors are Walter C. Kaiser and Duane Garrett. We begin with comments on 1:1-31, "The length of the creative days of Genesis 1 is not specified in the Bible."  They continue after listing three views for the gloss "day", "There is no indisputable indication as to which of the three is meant in Genesis 1."  We go on, "The Bible provides no specific statement as to how long ago matter was created, when the first day or creation began or when the sixth day ended."  To their credit concerning 1:1-2 and a supposed long gap, "Hebrew syntax, leaves no room for such a view."  So at least their willing to take a stance again the gap theory but won't give any critique of the compromised views of new evangelical scholarship.

This series has come to a conclusion.  So in conclusion in evaluating study Bibles in their handling of the account of creation and accommodation to new evangelical scholarship only three stand out as the least compromised or again evolutionary theory.  These three are the MacArthur Study Bible, Ryrie Study Bible and the Reformation Heritage Study Bible.

Hope this helps some.  Again if any facts or copied quotations straight from their own notes are not accurate please let me know.  In the end, keeping reading and memorizing the scriptures.  Don't forget the notes are not given by inspiration from God.

Comments of course as always encouraged.