Biblical timeline from creation

The following is my approach to the biblical timeline of history and roughly estimating the age of the earth – adding and comparing the ages of the patriarchs, reigns of the kings and other dates mentioned in the Old Testament. It begins from biblical creation and does not correlate it to historical BCE dating. There are some variations from my previous A Biblical timeline from creation and maybe from Biblical timeline from Creation to Christ. I decided to repost it since I discussed the seven days of creation.

TOWARD A BIBLICAL TIMELINE FROM CREATION
ASC = after sixth-day of creation
Event	Day/Year	Biblical Reference/s
Creation	Day 1	Genesis 1:1
Creation of Adam	Day 6	Genesis 1:26-31
Death of Adam	930 ASC	Genesis 5:5
Translation of Enoch	987 ASC	Genesis 5:23-24
Death of Seth	1042 ASC	Genesis 5:8
Birth of Noah	1056 ASC	Genesis 5:28-29
Death of Enos	1140 ASC	Genesis 5:11
Death of Cainan	1235 ASC	Genesis 5:14
Death of Mahalalel	1290 ASC	Genesis 5:17
Death of Jared	1422 ASC	Genesis 5:20
Birth of Shem	1558 ASC	Genesis 11:10
Death of Lamech	1651 ASC	Genesis 5:31
Death of Methuselah	1656 ASC	Genesis 5:27
Flood	1656 ASC	Genesis 7:11
Birth of Arphaxad	1658 ASC	Genesis 11:10
Tower of Babel	1757-1996	Gen 10:25; I Chron 1:19
Death of Peleg	1996 ASC	Genesis 11:18-19
Death of Nahor	1997 ASC	Genesis 11:24-25
Death of Noah	2006 ASC	Genesis 9:29
Birth of Abram	2008 ASC	Gen 11:32, 12:1-4; Acts 7:2-4
Death of Reu	2026 ASC	Genesis 11:20-21
Death of Serug	2049 ASC	Genesis 11:22-23
Death of Terah	2083 ASC	Genesis 11:32
Calling of Abram	2083 ASC	Genesis 12:1; Acts 7:4
Birth of Ishmael	2094 ASC	Genesis 16:16
Death of Arphaxad	2096 ASC	Genesis 11:12-13
Birth of Isaac	2108 ASC	Genesis 21:5
Death of Salah	2126 ASC	Genesis 11:14-15
Death of Sarah	2145 ASC	Genesis 23:1-2
Marriage of Isaac	2148 ASC	Genesis 25:20
Death of Shem	2158 ASC	Genesis 11:11
Death of Abraham	2183 ASC	Genesis 25:7
Death of Eber	2187 ASC	Genesis 11:16-17
Birth of Jacob & Esau	2168 ASC	Genesis 25:26
Marriage of Esau	2208 ASC	Genesis 26:24
Death of Ishmael	2231 ASC	Genesis 25:17
Marriage of Jacob	2252 ASC	Genesis 29:20-28
Birth of Reuben	2252 ASC	Genesis 29:32
Birth of Joseph	2259 ASC	Genesis 30:22-24
Jacob leaves Laban	2265 ASC	Genesis 31:41
Joseph sold to slavery	2276 ASC	Gen 37:2,28
Death of Isaac	2288 ASC	Genesis 35:28
Death of Jacob	2315 ASC	Genesis 47:9,28; 49:33
Death of Joseph	2369 ASC	Genesis 50:22,26
Birth of Moses	ca 2433	80 years before the Exodus
Moses flees Egypt	ca 2473	40 years before the Exodus
The Exodus from Egypt	2513 ASC	Gal 3:17; 430 from calling of Abram
The Wandering	2513-2553	40 years in the Wilderness
Death of Moses	2553 ASC	Deuteronomy 34:5-7
Entrance into Canaan	2553 ASC	Joshua 1:1-2
Time of the Judges	ca 450 yrs	Acts 13:20; circa 450 years
Saul made King	2949 ASC	I Samuel 10:20-24
David made King	2989 ASC	II Sam 2:4; 5:4; I Kings 2:11
Solomon made King	3029 ASC	I Kings 2:12
Temple began	3033 ASC	I Kings 6:1; 480 after the Exodus
Temple finished	3040 ASC	I Kings 6:37-38
End of Solomon's reign	3069 ASC	I Kings 11:42
Kingdom divided	3070 ASC	1st year of Rehoboam
Calling of Isaiah	3290 ASC	Last year of Uzziah
Captivity of Israel	3317 ASC	II Kings 18:10-12
Captivity of Judah	3449 ASC	II Kings 25:1-21 (70 years)
Decree of Cyrus	3519 ASC	2 Chron 36:21-23; Isaiah 45
Ezra 1-6	3519 ASC	Ezra 1:1-3
Haggai and Zechariah	3539 ASC	Haggai 1:1; Zechariah 1:1
Esther	3575 ASC	Esther 1:1-3
Ezra 7-10	3601 ASC	Ezra 7:1
Nehemiah	3614 ASC	Nehemiah 1:1
Coming of Jesus	4002 ASC	Dan 9:24-27; 483 from Cyrus decree

24 Hour-Days

The word “day” is used three ways in the Bible – (1) a 24 hour cycle (day & night, an entire revolution of the earth); (2) the period of time between sunrise and sunset (i.e. daylight); or (3) some unspecified period of time (i.e. figurative). This introduces the possibility that the days of creation – those seven days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis 1:1–2:3 in theory might be any one of these three.[i] Which is biblically correct?

Reasons that the first seven days are 24-hour periods

• “Day” in the Bible sometimes means indefinite, undefined, or prolonged periods (Cf. 2 Tim. 4:8). However, in all five of Moses’s books (the Pentateuch) when “day” is used with a numerical adjective,[ii] its meaning is restricted to a literal 24-hour day (Cf. Exod. 12:15; Lev. 23:5; Num. 29:17; Deut. 5:14). Genesis chapter 1-2 is no exception.
• The specific mention of evening and morning indicates that the Bible is speaking of 24-hour days. The writer’s intent is to describe these days just like any other days. Evening and morning is meaningless if referring to some unknown length of time. Bible days began at sunset rather than at midnight as our days (Cf. Gen. 1:5; Exod. 12:18; Lev. 23:32).
• If one interprets the evening as the first half of an extended period of time – say, 1000 years, for example – and the morning the second half, then an evening lasted 500 years and a morning 500 years. The evening is darkness and the day is light (Gen. 1:4-5). What happened to the plants created on the third day when the 500-year evening of the fourth day came? The same goes for the animals, and so on.
• Gen. 1:14 ties the work of the “lights in the firmament of the heaven” not only to the division of day and night, but also to dividing time into years. If normal units of time are not referenced, the text becomes obscure and abstruse.
• Adam was 930 years old when he died (Cf. Gen. 5:5). If Genesis Chapter 1 days were 1000-year periods, Adam would have been over 1000 years old on the second day of his existence and over 2000 by the time he died – since he was created on the sixth day. 930 years old becomes meaningless, whereas the writer clearly intends to convey chronological/genealogical history. The first seven days were the same kind of days Adam lived all of his life, and by which the days of his life were counted. If each day of Adam’s life were 1000 years, Adam would have been around 334,800,000 years old when he died![iii]
• Why would it take God 6000 years to create the world? God did not need 1000-year days – the theistic evolutionists need that length of time to explain their views. The Genesis account tells of a God who spoke and things came into existence. None said these days were ages before the scientists said the earth was billions of years old. The motive behind lengthening the first seven days is make the Bible conform to science – to fit the belief that the earth if billions of years old. Many scientific theories oppose God’s Word. No proven scientific fact disagrees with the Bible. Should scientists ever arrive at the truth, they will find Bible-believers are already there! 
• Man’s six work days correspond precisely to God’s six work days. Man’s day of rest corresponds to God’s day of rest. Man’s seven-day week is the same as God’s seven-day week. See Exodus 20:8-11. The first seven days are the same kind of days as our 24-hour days – the first week a week by which all weeks thereafter are patterned. The truth is plain and simple in Genesis, if we have eyes to see and are not searching for something else.
• Jesus and his disciples accepted Genesis 1 and 2 as plain, simple, straightforward history. When Jesus taught concerning marriage, he went back to “the beginning of creation” (Mark 10:6). God made them male and female.” When he spoke of “that tribulation” he made comparison to real history – “the beginning of the creation which God created until now” (Mark 13:19). When Paul sought to explain the origin of sin (Rom. 5:12-14) or the fact of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:45), he rooted his argument in real biblical history. Over and over the biblical writers, in both Old and New Testaments, accepted the creation account as written, without excuse.

---

[i] This writing is a revision of 7 things about the first 7 days from February 2013.

[ii] That is, “first day” (Gen. 1:5), “second day” (Gen. 1:8), “third day” (Gen. 1:13), “fourth day” (Gen. 1:19), “fifth day” (Gen. 1:23), “sixth day” (Gen. 1:31), “seventh day” (Gen. 2:3).

[iii] 930 years X 1000 year-days X 360 days in a year equals 334,800,000 years.

Where love is, and other quotes

The posting of quotes by human authors does not constitute agreement with either the quotes or their sources. (I try to confirm the sources that I give, but may miss on occasion; please verify when possible.)

"Where ever love is, Christ is, regardless of what the sign outside says." -- J. L. Reeves

"The law is holy, yet it sanctifies none." -- attributed William Huntington (I did not find this in Huntington’s works, searching online)

"My blindness is not a closed door. It’s just a different door." -- Jennifer Rothschild

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched?" -- Thomas Jefferson

"My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater." -- Charles H. Spurgeon

"God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, ‘God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.’" -- Charles H. Spurgeon, in “Salvation By Knowing the Truth”

"Sometimes love looks like dirty feet and dirty water and feels like the sting of betrayal." -- Denise Peckham

"The person who knows everything has the most to learn." -- Farmers’ Almanac, et al.

"For God is not worshiped of us, but when it is his will to accept our worship: and it is not his will to accept our worship, but when it is according to his will." -- William Perkins

"The same people who thought Obama was a Muslim think Trump is a Christian." -- Marilyn Russell Vandeveer

"If you can get a blessing by working for it, it is not a blessing at all, but a payment for services rendered." -- J. F. Poole

"Asking dumb questions is easier than making dumb mistakes." -- J. P. Moreland (in Scientism and Secularism)

"Hebrews 11:6 states that without faith it is impossible to please God. It is also true that without tradition it is impossible to please men." -- E.S. in Old Faith Contender, April-June, 1975

Wafer thin religion

The spirit of the world around us has blighted our appetite for communion with God and for the pursuit of inward holiness. Men crave ‘success’ in every walk of life. Progress is defined not in terms of character but of measurable and material growth. Even the moral outrages which are occurring with increasing frequency at every level of our society are incapable of proving to men that the true gold standard is not the dollar or the pound but the spiritual condition of the human heart. Experience teaches that the average Christian today, and the average church in which he is a member, is fashioned into conformity to the world far more than is realised. For every one book which is published on repentance and mortification there are a hundred which attempt to promote ‘church growth’ or else point the believer along the road to ‘success’. If the progress cannot be measured in quantitative terms it is judged unworthy of notice. As a direct consequence, the religion of the day is almost everywhere wafer thin and paper thin. Maturity is not to be found because it is not encouraged. Depths of soul or of mind are not met with because believers have no time left to cultivate the hidden man of the heart. Every spare minute must be devoted to rotating the treadmill of outward activity.

From Our Good Opinion of Ourselves by Maurice Roberts

How Sweet the Words

The “How Sweet the Words” hymn was written by Harry Presley (b. 1924). As of February 2019, he was still living near Stilwell, Oklahoma, where he was born. Roy Joseph “R.J.” Stevens (1927-2012) composed the tune. On his blog, Wayne Walker tells of the union of hymn and tune. “Harry sent me [R. J. Stevens] some religious poetry nearly thirty-five to forty years ago. He lived in a small town in Oklahoma and preached for the church in that community. I never met him and I haven’t been in touch with him since then. As you know, I put some of his poems to music.” The text is 8s.7s. meter, with a chorus or refrain of the same meter. 

1. How sweet the words that fill my ears,
The everlasting message,
Unchanged throughout the passing years,
Replete with every blessing.

2. Still new the scenes they now unfold
With every revelation;
Such love that man may now behold
God’s power unto salvation.

3. The tide of life forever flows
Within the holy pages;
Abiding still, their message grows
More precious through the ages.

Chorus (after each stanza):
They tell of God’s unceasing grace
To every Christian duty;
By faith we look upon His face
Within their sacred beauty.

The song may be found in Hymns for Worship (Dane K. Shepard and R. J. Stevens, editors, Kemp, TX: Shepard-Stevens Music, Inc., 1987). I am not aware that it is printed elsewhere. Both author and composer are part of the Alexander Campbell Restoration Movement, which differs widely from Baptists on certain doctrinal issues. Nevertheless, the hymn extols the word of God as the everlasting, unchanging, powerful, living revelation of God. It does not appear to me to be inconsistent with conservative Baptist views on the inspired word of God. “How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth! (Psalm 119:103).”

[Note: Since my originally posting this, Harry Presley died July 14, 2019.]

The sad effects of self-centered faith

Alan Bean, a popular “opinionist” at Baptist News, chucks evangelical and biblical theology because of particular texts he cannot square with his own view of God. He even seems to approve of “Some [who] have cut themselves free from the God of mainline Protestantism and report that their new-found agnosticism feels like a great weight has been lifted. God is openly denounced as a misogynist, authoritarian, homophobic lout.”

In contrast, John Stonestreet scores the new-found non-biblical liberty, writing, “If your God never tells you to do anything you don’t want to do, your god is probably you.” He also warns, “This kind of self-centered faith is epidemic both within the church and without, in conservative congregations and progressive ones.”

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Isaiah 5:20

Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the Lord pondereth the hearts.

Proverbs 21:2

There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Proverbs 16:25

Triple Cola

On Easter weekend my daughter bought a Triple Cola (in a 12 oz. glass bottle) for me while in Jefferson, Texas. It was different in a good way. I usually have a hard time describing different tastes/flavors. Summit City Soda sums it up this way:

“There is a strong cola smell, perhaps explaining why it is called ‘triple’ cola. This soda certainly packs a punch. It is a very strong cola flavor with notes of tree bark and ginger. Triple Cola is a complex and nuanced soda. This cola is one of few that places flavor above sugar. It is a true champion. Features of Triple Cola: Has all the taste, refreshment and caffeine necessary for an uplifting attitude; Bottled since 1921.”

Cartoon: Political or Anti-Semitic, or Both?

I posted on two Baptist discussion boards (one conservative leaning and one liberal leaning) this question.

The New York Times published and later apologized for the following cartoon.

 What is your take?

On these two discussion boards, those Baptists on the Left consistently accepted it as a normal political cartoon, while those on the Right consistently ascribed to it anti-Semitism. I am a biblical conservative and politically libertarian (with a strict constructionist view of the Constitution). I took it as an anti-Trump political cartoon, without reading anti-Semitism into it (I had no idea who drew it). Whether sincerely for ethical reasons or pragmatically for financial reasons,[i] The New York Times eventually labeled it anti-Semitic.[ii] Some of their comments include:

“We are deeply sorry for the publication of an anti-Semitic political cartoon last Thursday in the print edition of The New York Times that circulates outside the United States, and we are committed to making sure nothing like this happens again.”

“The image was offensive, and it was an error of judgment to publish it.”

“The appearance of such an obviously bigoted cartoon in a mainstream publication is evidence of a profound danger, not only of anti-Semitism but of numbness to its creep, to the insidious way this ancient, enduring prejudice is once again working itself into public view and common conversation.”

António Moreira Antunes,[iii] the Portuguese cartoonist who created it, defended his product, saying, “It is a critique of Israeli policy, which has a criminal conduct in Palestine, at the expense of the UN, and not the Jews.”

It is nothing new that political cartoons offend people! They are pointed and often mean-spirited. They intend to oppose and even ridicule politicians, practices, and points of view. Political cartoons commonly offend those on the side being roasted. I find only a small portion of political cartoons ubiquitously humorous. A few achieve the Larry the Cable Guy award, “That’s funny, I don’t care who you are.”

My take. I understood it as a political cartoon that was “anti-Trump.” Donald Trump is the blind schmuck led around by Benjamin Netanyahu. I can accept as sincere the cartoonist’s explanation that he critiques Israeli policy. I can also accept the fact that Jews could be offended by it. Ultimately, I see it as a political cartoon like most political cartoons I see – a dull tiresome critique of politicians, practices, and points of view. (Some are creative and entertaining; most are not.) However, I think the visceral reaction against it affirms the “perpetually offended” nature of Western Society. Many people are walking around looking for something that will offend them. If they cannot find it, they will create something. Further, I see it as the Right copying a page from the Left’s playbook – play the race card when it gives an advantage, whether there is anything substantially racial or not.

Lighten up, boys. Ask the bandwagon to stop and let you off. If most Jews were not offended, as this article suggests,[iv] perhaps the rest of us need to just mosey along.

---

[i] Whether anti-Semitic or not (which many have labeled The New York Times), they seem fairly certainly anti-Netanyahu.

[ii] In a Times column, editorialist Bret Stephens wrote that the cartoon was “an image that, in another age, might have been published in the pages of Der Stürmer.” Der Stürmer was a Nazi newspaper.

[iii] According to The Jerusalem Post, António’s editorial cartoons have been published since 1974. He is stranger to neither controversy nor success. He won first prize at the 20th International Salon of Cartoons in Montreal in 1983 with a cartoon depicting “Israeli soldiers tormenting Lebanese women and children.” Ten years later, he angered Catholics and sexual abstinence advocates with a cartoon of Pope John Paul II wearing a condom on the end of his nose.

[iv] The author writes “that most American Jews, while ethnically Jewish, are ethically leftist.”

35 on 35, and other links

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.

• 35 on 35 -- "Fascinating food, history and popular culture lure travelers along Interstate 35."
• A “Gospel” that Almost Killed Me -- "When it comes to embracing the prosperity gospel, I doubt that you would have found anyone more dedicated or ruthless than me."
• All History Is Revisionist History -- "The key is that history is about making meaning of the past...It is inevitably controversial, for interpretation is inherently subjective."
• Baylor, the Man -- "Even though the name Baylor has been prominent in Texas higher education for 174 years, Judge R.E.B. Baylor’s name was attached to the university only as the result of a quirky legislative process."
• Censoring the internet – A plea from John Milton -- "Milton argued that suppressing books was like murdering someone...The governments should treat us like grown-ups able to think and reason for ourselves."
• Cradle Graves: Not Just for Children -- "Cradle graves began appearing in American cemeteries in early part of the 1800s. This type of marker became popular during the Civil War..."
• Deconstructing Driscoll – Lessons for American, Australian and UK Church Cultures -- "...the impression was given that Mark knew what he wanted to say and the bible passage was just a back up – rather than the other way round."
• Dem Rep. Cicilline: Imprison White House Officials That Don’t Comply with Congressional Subpoenas -- "...Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, suggested imprisonment for officials in the Trump administration that did not comply with congressional subpoenas."
• Don’t Be a 9Marxist! -- "Members were “infantilized.” Power was “concentrated at the top” and had no accountability."
• Judge dismisses suit against NAMB by ex-state exec -- "Citing “ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, rooted in the First Amendment’s free exercise clause,” Davidson wrote, “The Court dismisses this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”"
• Judge Slams Kim Foxx For Double Standard in Smollett Case: ‘Your Office Created This Mess’ -- "A Cook County judge recently castigated State’s Attorney Kim Foxx for upholding a double standard by prosecuting an anonymous woman for filing a false police report after dropping all charges against Empire actor Jussie Smollett, who was indicted for the same offense."
• Pedophilia Being Taught As “Sexual Orientation” in California Schools -- "With “sexual orientation” increasingly becoming a legally protected category across almost half of the states already — with Congress working on it too — the implications of defining pedophilia and pederasty as such are hard to overstate."
• Scoop: A new conservative media company -- "Jonah Goldberg is leaving National Review in the coming months to start a new conservative media company with Steve Hayes, who was editor-in-chief of The Weekly Standard when its owner shut it down in December."
• Texas Teacher Confiscates Bible from Second-grader -- "They are letting them read The Hunger Games, that’s kids killing kids, why can’t she read the Bible?"
• The False God of Feelings: Mayor Buttigieg’s Pro-Gay Christianity -- "...if your God never tells you to do anything you don’t want to do, your god is probably you."

The Roman Road

The Roman Road to Salvation, also known as, the Romans Road to Salvation. A little over two years ago, I wrote concerning the history of The Roman Road to Salvation. Today I want to focus on its “faith and practice.”

First, what is the “Roman Road?” The Roman Road to salvation is a method of evangelizing that focuses on verses from the book of Romans about sin, death, and salvation. This “Printable” version of a Roman Road by Kathy Howard uses five locations in Romans.[i] She writes, “But how do we share that in a way that people will recognize their need and respond to Jesus? One very simple way is what Christians call the ‘Roman Road.’ It’s a short list of verses from the book of Romans that show our need for salvation and how Jesus fills that need. I have seen variations of this list that includes 4 to 8 verses. My list below includes 5, very easy to memorize verses.” Got Questions has an article titled “What is the Romans Road to salvation?” It also about uses about five stops along the road, while incorporating a few more Romans’ texts than Howard does.

Kathy Howard’s Roman Road:

• Romans 3:23 – Every person has sinned, has done things contrary to God’s holy perfection.
• Romans 6:23 – Our sin has a cost. That cost is spiritual death or eternal separation from God.
• Romans 5:8 – Because God loves us, He paid our sin debt Himself. Sinless, perfect Jesus died in our place.
• Romans 10:13 – Anyone and everyone who accepts Jesus’ gift, or “calls on His name,” will receive God’s salvation.
• Romans 10:9-10 – Anyone who believes and confesses that Jesus died for us and rose from the dead will be saved!

No Bible believer that I know of objects to the verses in Romans or rejects their usefulness in teaching truths about sin, death, and salvation. Every scripture in the “Roman Road” is inspired, sound, and biblical. Not every preacher or soul-winner who uses “the Road” is!

“Evangelism With The Romans Road” by Paul Fritz at Sermon Central uses six locations in the book of Romans and concludes with an exhortation to prayer. Fritz writes, “If you have never really accepted Jesus as your personal Savior, would you do it right now? Do not delay or put it off. If you would like to receive Christ by faith, pray this simple prayer in your heart:”

“Dear Lord, I acknowledge that I am a sinner. I believe Jesus died for my sins on the cross, and rose again the third day. I repent of my sins. By faith I receive the Lord Jesus as my Savior. You promised to save me, and I believe You, because You are God and cannot lie. I believe right now that the Lord Jesus is my personal Savior, and that all my sins are forgiven through His precious blood. I thank You, dear Lord, for saving me. In Jesus’ name, Amen.”

Paul Fritz concludes by pronouncing salvation on and giving assurance to any person who prays this prayer, “If you prayed that prayer, God heard you and saved you. I personally want to welcome you to the family of God.”

When someone objects to the “Roman Road” style of evangelism, there are always those “Roadies” who come along to raise the spectre of Calvinism. Calvinism is an easy foil charged with giving the Roman Road a bad rap. First, we need to realize that objections to the Roman Road are not just from the realm of Calvinism. The very first objections I heard were from Missionary Baptists who rejected the 5-points of Calvinism.[ii] Second, Roman Roadies need to realize – their own practices give the Roman Road a bad rap. Don’t look for someone else to blame!

One primary objection is the way these verses are used. This use reduces salvation to a method – if repeated, the proven steps will yield the right results every time. In principle the “repeat after me” prayer method subtly (or not so subtly) changes the biblical exhortations of repent and believe the gospel to “pray this prayer.”[iii] Some proponents of “the Road” are careful to say something like “if you sincerely prayed this pray.” However, note the quote from Paul Fritz above does not bother with this distinction. When the Philippian jailer asked Paul and Silas, “What must I do to be saved,” they responded with “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” rather than “pray this prayer.”[iv]

The “Roman Road” method can be very superficial, manipulative, and results-driven. A number of believers have related online such things as “soul winning contests” in which they participated. Those who “got someone saved” received points for the feat, and the one who got the most points won the contest! Often these people are told that someone should be saved every time they go soul-winning, and if not they must be doing something wrong. Taking “no” for an answer is a sign of weakness and unconcern.[v]  The process usually ends with, “Bow your head and repeat this prayer.” There is good reason to question the sincerity of a profession of faith under “duress.”[vi]

Again, no Bible believer objects to any of the verses in Romans. These superficial, manipulative, results-driven practices give the verses a bad name. The Roman Road, as often practiced, reduces evangelism to a repetitive scheme more akin to the door-to-door salesmanship than sharing the gospel. Take your free fire insurance! The New Testament commands the presentation of the gospel and leaving the response to the conviction of the gospel and the Holy Spirit. May we be careful to neither add nor subtract.

---

[i] I write “locations” rather than “verses” because sometimes one “step” on the Road will include more than one verse.

[ii] As an example, see Friendship Missionary Baptist Church, Our Beliefs and Friendship Missionary Baptist Church, Salvation.

[iii] Some believers have dubbed this a “1-2-3-repeat-after-me” style of evangelism. Exhortations such as “make a decision for Christ,” “”accept Christ,” “ask Jesus into your heart,” and so on also substitute for “repent and believe.” I’m not sure what compels people to prefer these over biblical exhortations.

[iv] Perhaps I have missed it, but I have not noticed any New Testament reference that advises an unbeliever to do that.

[v] Curiously, some of the loudest advocates for extreme free will are the same ones guiltiest of badgering and bullying unbelievers into making a profession of faith. They say God can’t violate a person’s free will, yet they don’t mind doing it!

[vi] I have been present with “soul-winners” who bulldozed through the verses, forced the “right” answers out of the individual, and concluded the session by pronouncing the lost now saved and secure. Not being the presenter gives one the luxury of watching the body language, facial expressions, glances (when more than one is being witnessed to) and such like of the person or persons on the receiving end. Sometimes there was hilarity and mockery; maybe frustration and despair as the “soul-winnee” just wanted it all to be over with so he or she could get on with life; even the totally unresponsive. This would be coupled with lack of discernment on the part of the soul-winner. So busy putting another notch in his belt, the soul-winner can be oblivious to the real reception he and the gospel are receiving.