Minor Premise: God uses secondary causes (preachers, instructors) in man’s recreation; therefore,

Conclusion: God used secondary causes (billions of years, evolution) in the Genesis creation.

There are several errors in this syllogism.

First, that the recreation is a perfect mirror of the Genesis creation is an erroneous and unproved premise. Paul’s appeal to “light shining out of darkness” in II Cor. 4:6 refers to the inspiration and inward illumination given unto the apostles and preachers of the gospel, equipping them for the work of the ministry, and is hardly a basis for arguing a complete equivalence between the recreation and the Genesis creation. Paul is simply saying that as God called physical light into existence in the beginning, so he caused spiritual light to shine in the hearts of the apostles by the Holy Ghost. The analogy stops there and can be taken no further. Did God separate the waters from the dry land in the recreation? In what manner can it be said he “recreated” lower life forms, fish, birds, and creeping things? What about the waters above and below the firmament, where do these appear in the recreation? Since it cannot be shown that there is a complete equivalence between the creation and recreation, the alleged presence of secondary causes in the latter provides no basis for arguing their presence in the former. The author’s false premise leads to a faulty conclusion.

Second, the author’s minor premise is also in error. In the creation, God ordained that men be born into the world by procreation; that is, by and through the medium of other causes (carnal copulation). In the recreation, God ordained that men be brought into the kingdom of heaven by secondary causes (preaching, repentance, baptism). Thus, the secondary causes in the recreation answer to the secondary causes in the Genesis creation; procreation by physical union of man and woman answers to procreation by reception of the word in the heart of man, culminating in repentance and baptism. As there were no “secondary causes” in the Genesis creation (the author cannot identify a single one), so there are no “secondary causes” in the kingdom of heaven (the recreation). The kingdom into which men are born by repentance and baptism was called into existence by the word of God and nothing more. The author is therefore in error when he alleges that the recreation (kingdom) was brought about by secondary causes.

Finally, because the author argues from mistaken premises, it is inevitable that he reach a mistaken conclusion. The author believes that there were secondary causes in the Genesis creation other than word and Spirit of God. We challenge him to identify a single secondary cause. They do not exist in the scripture! If they did, the author would not have to fabricate them by reverse deduction, arguing from a faulty syllogism about the recreation. Let the author point to a single verse of scripture showing that billions of years elapsed in the creation; let him point to a single verse that shows the presence of natural causes or evolution in the Genesis creation. He cannot do it! They do not exist. Typical to the author’s methodology, he insinuates into the Bible what is not there. He presumes upon the silence of the scripture; he dares to add to the word of God what God has not said!

Kurt Simmons