ONLY THE BEGINNING

[Joe Sperling]

I was reading "Revelation" by Clarence Larkin, and right near the end of the book he says some cool things and I thought I'd share them. See if you agree with his hypothesis.(I should say "does his hypothesis or conjecture make you think"?)

"For as the New Heavens and the New Earth, which I will make, shall remain before Me, saith the Lord, so shall your "Seed" and your "Name" remain". (Is. 66:12).

"It seems clear the by presence of the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden, that God intended the human race to populate the Earth, and when it became too thickly populated, to use the surplus population to colonize other spheres. Our "Solar System" is only in it's infancy. The Earth is the only one of its planets as yet habitable. Where are the inhabitants for the other planets to come from? Think you that the planets of our Solar System, and the planets of other Solar Systems, of which stars are the suns, were made simply to adorn the heavens for our little earth?

God does not plan things on a SMALL SCALE, and it magnifies his power and wisdom to believe that He created man in his own likeness, a created thing higher than the angels, and gifted with the power of procreation, that he might by means of man populate the Universe. This magnifies the scheme of Redemption. Think you that God gave his Son to die on Calvary just to redeem a few millions of the human race (book written in 1921--JS)? Why, He could have blotted them out, as he did the Preadamite race, and created a new race, and Satan would have laughed because he had the second time blocked God's plan for peopling of this earth.

No, God will not permit Satan to block his plan for peopling this earth with a sinless human race. The death of Christ was not merely to redeem a few millions of the human race, but to redeem the Earth, and the race itself from the curse of sin, and the dominion of Satan.

The Apostle James tells us that we are only the "First Fruits" of this "Creatures". (James 1:18). What then must the HARVEST BE? The Universe is young yet. We are only the BEGINNING OF THINGS, for "Of the increase of his government and peace THERE SHALL BE NO END". (IS. 9:7).

When this earth shall have gone through it's "Baptism of Fire" and shall be again fit for the occupancy of man, the representatives of the "saved Nations" will be men and women in whom no taint of sin will remain, and who cannot therefore impart it to their offspring, who will be like the offspring of Adam and Eve would have been if they had not sinned. This magnifies the whole scheme of redemption, and justifies God in the creation of the human race".  (Pgs. 206 and 207 of Revelation by Clarence Larkin).

He wrote this book back in 1921. The above section reminded me this morning just how vast and infinite God is. I have a tendency to make God too small. I'll ask stupid questions like "Could God REALLY know the most intimate details of EVERYONE (6 billion) ON EARTH?"  The answer of course is that he can, EASILY. He is capable of knowing an INFINITE amount of people all at once. And the amazing thing is that he is absolutely just as concerned about one person as another.  I love to encourage myself with thoughts like this, because it is so easy to drift into feeling that God is kind of distant, or doesn't really care all that much about us.

The other thing about the above paragraphs is the thought that we really are a part of what is ONLY BEGINNING.  We are truly at the forefront of something God plans to do through the ages of ages. we weren't created to be saved and just go to heaven. There is a vast, amazing plan, involving multitudes and multitudes of beings---and a vast, infinite amount of time---and beyond time to eternity!!!  And WE are part of it!!  That is truly amazing!!!  I just thought I'd share that, because it is so encouraging!!  Not that Clarence Larkin is the final say on anything--it's just a hypothesis--an idea---but I think it's amazing to think about.

[Oscar]

Joe,

I do not presume to understand what God may or may not do after the culmination of all things prophesied in the Book of Revelation.  It stands to reason that an infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient being could have a multitude of plans and projects in mind. Those plans could well include a redeemed and transformed humanity as agents or objects of those plans.

Larkin, however, is using some ideas current at the date of writing, (1921), along with some poor reasoning to support this idea.

The first problem is that in 1921 very little was known about our solar system.  Most people believed that the "canals" on Mars indicated the presence of a civilization on that planet.  Venus was thought of as a "garden planet" based on its orbital position. Today we know that all the planets are uninhabitible in their current states.

We also know that earth-like planets are either extremely rare or non-existent outside of our own solar system.  Two recent books about this are "Rare Earth" by Ward and Brownlee (non-Christians) and "The Privileged Planet" by Gonzales and Richards, (Christians).

Another problem for Larkin's idea is that most galaxies cannot contain life-support planets due to radiation levels.  In our own spiral type galaxie life is only possible within a small range of positions. Positions, btw, that describe our own location.

Larkin also makes some logical/theological errors.  He wrote, " Think you that God gave his Son to die on Calvary just to redeem a few millions of the human race? Why, He could have blotted them out, as he did the Preadamite race, and created a new race, and Satan would have laughed because he had the second time blocked God's plan for peopling of this earth."

A couple of problems are:

1. Since human beings are the only creation we know of that bears the image of God, Christ died for at least some of them, (limited atonement), or all of them, (as the Bible plainly teaches,    ), the value of his sacrifice is not measured by the quantity of objects, but by its inherent quality.

2. What preadamite race?  Although this idea has been around a while, the Bible does not mention it, and science has never turned up any evidence of it.

3. Larkin's third argument, about Satan blocking God's plan for peopling of this earth, begs the question, ie, it assumes what it is arguing for and uses it as a premise leading to the same conclusion.

So, in this universe, I don't think so.  In a New Heavens and a New Earth...who knows.

Blessings,

Tom M.

[vernecarty]

A couple of problems are:

1. Since human beings are the only creation we know of that bears the image of God, Christ died for at least some of them, (limited atonement), or all of them, (as the Bible plainly teaches,    ), the value of his sacrifice is not measured by the quantity of objects, but by its inherent quality.


Blessings,

Tom M.

If the Bible does indeed teach that Christ died for all, then the value of His sacrifice must necessarily be measured quantitatively and your position is contradictory Tom.
The "inherent quality"  of the atonement is unavoidably diminished if some He died for (atoned for) go to hell.

Some on the other hand contend that the "inherent quality" of Christ's sacrifice is maintained since every one He died for will indeed be saved - His death also atones for the sin of unbelief which is the only one that condemns every lost sinner.

We do not limit the "inherent quality" of the sacrifice as regards its efficacy, rather we limit its extent.
By maintaining that some for whom Christ died will go to Hell,(which the Bible plainly does not teach  )a clear limit of the efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ is implied.
No other position is possible.
Verne

p.s theologians call that position inconsistent particularism which its adherents are forced to adopt since they must concede universalism (everyone is ultimately saved) is Scripturally indefensible...

[Joe Sperling]

Tom--

Thanks---you make very good points. Especially when you mention that Christ's sacrifice is not measured by quantity of objects but it's inherent quality. I think what Larkin is getting at is that God's purpose goes far beyond just "us", as his original purpose in the beginning, when he created man, was to "replenish the earth". Of course, we have no idea of knowing where this would have led, and leads to complete conjecture such as Larkin puts forth.

It does seem awfully strange that God would have created billions upon billions of galaxies and to have only put life on one small planet in one galaxy. It seems "logical" that either life exists elsewhere, or that the planets and distant galaxies are intended to be inhabited by man (or someone else).  But again, what seems "logical" to us may be far from logical to God.

I agree also that there is no proof for the "preadamite" race--although I do enjoy the conjecture of a huge span of time between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. When God creates man he says to "replenish" (to fill once again) the earth. When the Spirit comes "upon the face of the waters" the earth is already there, apparently covered with a mass of water. Peter mentions that the "world that then was" was DESTROYED by water--was he talking about the flood in Noah's day, or a much earlier flood? This would account for the water already being on the earth when the Spirit of God "came upon the face of the waters" and God said "Let there be light".  Interestingly, in Isaiah God says he did not create the world VOID. Yet, Genesis 1:2 says the world was "without form and void".

Did Satan destroy the earth and make it "without form and void"(Gen 1:2) due to some plan God had? Did Satan destroy that world due to this plan? When God once again "recreated" the earth, did Satan enter the scene again, and tempt man to fall, knowing that God had told him "Thou shalt surely die"? Did Satan believe if man fell it would be the literal end of him in physical immediate death? Perhaps Satan did not know God was referring to spiritual death, and not "immediate" physical death. When Satan said "Thou shalt not surely die" did he believe man would IMMEDIATELY face death? Did Satan once again seek to thwart God in populating the earth?  This is Larkin's conjecture---and again, I say conjecture, as there can be no way it can be taken as doctrine or "spiritual truth".

If one gets the time it really is worth it to read "Revelation", "Daniel" and the "Spirit World" by Clarence Larkin, if only to see his charts alone. Some of his drawings are pretty amazing and took quite a while to draw.  His writings all deal with the "end times" and prophecy, and he is pretty much "right on" when referring to basic doctrines.  What is fun is some of the "conjecture" that he puts forth, because it stirs the imagination, and makes one think.  He also (along with Arthur Pink and a few others) puts forth the "conjecture" and theory that Judas himself will be the actual Antichrist returned to earth.  Again, not to be taken as "doctrine", but for consideration.  I always find the books extremely interesting.