Tuesday, August 12, 2025

Doubting Thomas Was Not The Biggest Doubter!

Doubting Thomas Was Not The Biggest Doubter!

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, August 12, 2025 (Donate)

Now Thomas, called the Twin, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” So he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”

And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!” Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”

And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” John 20:24-29, NKJV

Thomas And His Doubt

My fellow Christians, when we read about the lack of faith that Thomas, one of Jesus’ twelve disciples, had regarding seeing the resurrected Christ, we often think, How dull can you be?

Think about this for a moment—Thomas knew that Jesus predicted His own death and resurrection. Jesus had been put to death a week or so before in a public and horrific manner, and the disciples (and many others) were proclaiming they had seen Him resurrected. Yet Thomas still doubted.

Thomas was not convinced of the bodily resurrection unless he could touch the hands of Christ and feel where the nails had pierced Him. Jesus obliged and appeared again to the disciples—a second time—with Thomas present. Jesus, in His amazing compassion, allowed Thomas to verify that He had indeed been run through by nails.

Image generated by Grok August 12, 2025

Thomas, amazed even more than expected, drew back and rightly proclaimed that Jesus was God. It finally clicked in Thomas’s mind who Jesus truly was.

Even after years of Jesus explaining who He was, what He came to do, and prophesying that He must be put to death and resurrected, Thomas still struggled—until this moment. Thomas realized Jesus really was who He said He was and truly did what He said He would do, showing His power over life and death. Thomas submitted and acknowledged the risen Christ as God who came in the flesh.

What Did We Just Miss?

When we read this account as Christians many years removed we often lament the stubbornness of Thomas’s belief about Christ’s resurrection. We even call someone a “doubting Thomas” if they don’t believe something today.

But I want to take note of what is going on in the background. When Thomas makes his profession of Jesus (“my Lord and my God”), the other disciples are present. Why is this so important?

Mark’s account points out that the other disciples were also having a hard time believing.

And they went and told it to the rest, but they did not believe them either. Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen. (Mark 16:13-14, NKJV; emphasis added)

Luke also points out that:

So they rose up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, saying, “The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” And they told about the things that had happened on the road, and how He was known to them in the breaking of bread.

Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, “Peace to you.” But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit.

And He said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? “Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.” When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.  But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, “Have you any food here?” (Luke 24:33-41, NKJV, emphasis added)

It wasn’t just Thomas who had initial doubts. The other disciples also had the opportunity to see Christ’s hands and feet, yet they still did not believe.

Furthermore, when we come to the ascension of Jesus Christ into the heavenlies to sit at the right hand of the Father on the throne of God, we read an interesting detail. Jesus had been preaching for 40 days, and now it was His time to leave. Matthew records,

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted. (Matthew 28:16-17, NKJV, emphasis added). 

Keep in mind that Thomas was among them in this instance, and we know what he believed—without question—he was no longer doubting. So take note: some of the eleven disciples still doubted. Some still struggled with unbelief, yet Thomas didn’t!

These disciples—though we don’t know which ones specifically, but definitely not Thomas—still had doubts after seeing and conversing with Jesus several times. Furthermore, they had witnessed Thomas touching the nail holes in Christ’s hands and had the opportunity themselves. Yet some still doubted. We give Thomas a lot of grief, but he did better than others!

Of course, any doubts were laid to rest with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the subsequent power that came on them at Pentecost (e.g., John 20:22; Acts 1:5-8). The Holy Spirit convicts unto belief (e.g., 1 Corinthians 12:3).

Are You A “Doubting Thomas”?

For those reading this who have not submitted to Christ and His resurrection, I would like you to consider how you may be like a “doubting Thomas.” Be honest with yourself. After all, we were all “doubting Thomases” until the Holy Spirit worked in our lives.

I want to encourage you to receive Jesus Christ as Lord. We may not be able to touch the wounds of Christ but remember what Jesus said:

“Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:29, NKJV)

 

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist since 1998 helping out in various churches and running an apologetics website. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council. 

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children.

Monday, August 11, 2025

Saved By Grace…And Evolution?

Feedback: Saved By Grace…And Evolution?

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, August 11, 2025 (Donate)

I am responding to a letter that staunchly opposes the creation view and hold that God used evolution. The writer goes so far as to say that holding to a creation view is based on one giant sin. Here is the letter, and my response.

Creationwise by Dan Lietha; Image from Presentation Library

Letter, unedited:

I am a Christian, and so I do not mislead you I disagree scientifically with your beliefs. However, I don't care if you think the earth is a few thousand years old. I don't care if you reject evolution. We are both saved by the grace of God. However, I cannot help but feel that this movement is based on one giant sin. It is clear, very clear, especially in Paul's epistles, that the entire purpose of the Church is to spread the word, to bring people to God, to give Him glory. First, who gets glory out of this grand theory? Not God. No, rejecting evolution does not give glory to God, because evolution IS COMPATIBLE with God, even if you believe it to be wrong. Secondly, I am witnessing to people in pain, people who NEED Christ, but these people are thinkers, and they have been presented the face of Christianity that YOU PRESENT. They are disgusted! Why should we be hindering the spread of the Gospel over a LESS THAN FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH? Teach God's love, the cross, mercy- those are TRUE

K.N., U.S.

Response:

I am a Christian, and so I do not mislead you I disagree scientifically with your beliefs.

Thanks for being up front about your belief system (i.e., theistic evolution as can be determined in your email). Please see my comments done by point-by-point style below. I pray this response will help you realize the importance of accepting all of God’s Word—including the book of Genesis. My comments are said with sincerity.

However, I don't care if you think the earth is a few thousand years old. I don't care if you reject evolution. 

Then why send the email if you don’t care? 

We are both saved by the grace of God.

Of course we are both saved if we’ve called upon Christ in the Bible to be our Savior.[1] But what are you saved from? I assume you would say “sin.” But what is sin? The book of Genesis provides the definition: disobedience to God’s commands. A literal man (Adam) disobeyed a literal command of God (Genesis 2:15–17) and suffered the consequences (Genesis 3). And we all sin too because we all sinned in Adam and continue to sin.

Within the evolutionary, millions-of-years evolutionary paradigm, there is no Adam and thus no first sin. Furthermore, in this view, death is not the punishment for sin (contrary to Genesis 3:19), but has existed for millions of years. In this scenario, why do you need Christ to save you from sin and death as that would be a natural part of creation? Such a position undermines the gospel. Even atheists understand this point:

“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.”[2] 

However, I cannot help but feel that this movement is based on one giant sin.

Feelings are not the measure of truth or the standard that determines what sin is. God’s Word is.

It is clear, very clear, especially in Paul's epistles, that the entire purpose of the Church

But these three purposes mentioned below do not comprise the entire purpose of the Church. I suggest a search for the word “church” in the Bible to give you an idea of a few other important roles. For example, the church is to pray (Acts 12:5), settle disputes (Matthew 18:17, 1 Corinthians 6:4), and so on.

is to spread the word,

Why spread the Word if you don't even believe it in the first place (e.g., Genesis)?

Since you brought up Paul, then consider that he used a creation-evangelism message when he preached on Mars Hill (Acts 17:22–31). The concept isn’t original to us: we follow his example and spread God’s Word and the good news of Jesus Christ beginning in Genesis. Christ first (the Creator—Colossians 1:16); Christ last and throughout (Savior, Ruler and Sustainer of His creation).

Exhibit of Paul writing in an old Creation Museum display; Picture by Bodie Hodge

A theistic evolutionist has no choice but to reject the plain teachings in Genesis 1–11, as these chapters clearly stand opposed to molecules-to-man evolution. When Genesis 1–11 is deemed myth or allegorized, what happens? In addition to there being no basis for the gospel, there is also no basis for clothing (Genesis 3), for death being an enemy (Genesis 3, 1 Corinthians 15:26), for marriage (Genesis 1-2, Matthew 19:4-5), and so on.

If we are being chastised for preaching the Word in Genesis and not going along with the world, when it rejects Genesis, well, then, thanks for the compliment! We would rather trust what God said He did and encourage others to do the same.

to bring people to God,

One thing should be noted—we don’t bring people to the Lord. In fact, no human does. We provide witness, testimonies, and answers, but only the Spirit can convict and regenerate the sinner (1 Corinthians 12:3, Romans 10:17). We are working to help people come to know the Lord, but it is the work of Lord that really saves.

So there is a difference, we can’t force people into believing (John 6:44). The gospel is the primary reason for why we minister as we do. And we have seen many people come to Christ because they discover that the Bible can be trusted from the very first verse.

to give Him glory.

Our hope is to always give glory to God in all that we do. We would not do what we do if that weren't our goal. But what about the other goals of the church and there are too many to list but one is teach people to believe what is set forth in the Bible…every thought included (Matthew 28:20, 2 Corinthians 10:5).

First, who gets glory out of this grand theory? Not God.

I take it that this “grand theory” that you are referring to is biblical creation (God created supernaturally, made man from dust, made woman from man, made a “very good” world without death or suffering; man sins, and death and suffering enter the creation [hence we need a Savior]; a worldwide Flood destroys the wicked, and Noah, his wife, and his three sons and their wives were saved on an Ark to repopulate the earth, etc.). 

Such teachings simply come from Genesis, God’s Word. This is not a theory; this is what God said happened, an eyewitness account. Who is anyone to question what God said and put our trust in imperfect human speculations about the past?

Certainly there are creationist models that we base on the biblical account, such as catastrophic plate tectonics, but you'll notice that we don't take a firm stance on any model—even creationist ones. The only thing we stand on is the account (not theory) of Genesis 1–11, and the authority of Scripture as a whole. How can teaching others to trust God’s Word not be honoring to Him and bring Him glory?

No, rejecting evolution does not give glory to God,

Perhaps I don’t follow your logic: telling people that God was wrong in Genesis somehow gives God glory but telling people that God is correct in Genesis doesn’t give Him glory? This is illogical. David presented this psalm:

Declare His glory among the nations, His wonders among all peoples (1 Chronicles 16:24, NKJV).

Declaring God’s glory and His marvelous deeds doesn’t entail pretending God did something other than what He recorded in Genesis. God is correct in all things that He speaks, including origins. In fact, throughout the psalms David worshipped God and gave Him glory specifically because of His deeds of creation (as Job did).

because evolution IS COMPATIBLE with God,

Which “god” are you referring to here? The God of the Bible, who says what He did in Genesis, openly disagrees with molecules-to-man evolution. A god of a millions-of-years-old earth is a god of death, not the God of life and God of love that Scripture teaches. 

Applying attributes of such a false god to the God of the Bible demeans the character and nature of God. It would also mean that an all-good, all-powerful, truthful God deceived Israelites and Christians, who loved and trusted Him for thousands of years, all the while waiting for atheists to “interpret” Genesis properly for us? It is better to trust God than men (Psalm 118:8).

I understand that you, like most of us who work in ministry have been taught evolution, whether in public schools, government influence, or the media. But holding it in such high regard over the Word of God is not good theology. The false belief system of evolution that has been promoted for 150 years has subtly crept into many Christians’ thinking, and it is time to get back to God’s Word and not be deceived. God's Word is sufficient.

In these past 150 years, many once-Christian universities become atheistic upon the acceptance of evolution; public schools have become atheistic upon acceptance of evolution with prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the Bible removed from the classroom; nations that were largely Christian have become largely atheistic upon acceptance of evolution (England for example); evolution was a driving force in the actions of Hitler, Stalin, and other mass murderers. After such a history, what would possibly make someone think that evolution provides a foundation to lead people to Christ?

even if you believe it to be wrong.

It is not a matter of what I believe, but a matter of what God says.

Secondly, I am witnessing to people in pain, people who NEED Christ,

As do I. And I point to many resources on the subject to give people answers. In an evolutionary perspective, death, pain, and suffering existed long before man, was a tool God used, and was something God would have called “very good” (if one allegorizes Genesis): so God would be responsible for it or perhaps powerless to do anything about it in an atheistic evolutionary view. So why are you spending time dealing with people in pain if pain, suffering and death is good in the atheistic perspective?

However, in Genesis 3, we find that man’s sin is responsible for death entering the creation (Genesis 3; Romans 5:12). God is not to blame but man’s actions are. Death (and all that accompanies it—pain, suffering, disease, sickness, cancer, tears, heartbreak) is an intrusion into God’s creation; death is described as an enemy (1 Corinthians 15:26) that will be removed (Revelation 21:4).

This is all the more reason to realize that Jesus came to save us from the problem we, as mankind, caused in the first place. The beautiful hope is that through receiving the free gift of eternal life provided for by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (our Creator!), we can look forward to a time when the curse God placed on His creation (Genesis 3; Romans 8:18–21) is no more. To a time when there will be no more pain, tears, heartbreak, death (Revelation 21:1–5, 22:3), as it was in the beginning.

If Genesis isn’t true, then what answers can one really give sinners for their pain? “That's the way God created things”? “Pain is a part of the process that God used to bring about His creation”? “Death is a very natural and good part of God’s creation”? “Tears are part of the evolutionary process as we struggle to survive in this dog-eat-dog world that God created”? If a professing Christian is consistent with the “millions of years”  evolutionary mindset, this is what that person must say to those to which they are witnessing. How sad and hurtful.

but these people are thinkers,

What do you mean by “thinkers”? As opposed to creation scientists and those with advanced degrees? Or general creationists, which, statistically speaking, run the gamut of intellectual prowess, as any subset of society does? 

The Bible says all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are in Christ (Colossians 2:2–3). Jesus quoted Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 when explaining the basis of marriage (Mathew 19 and Mark 10). Jesus pointed out that marriage between a male and female has been around since the beginning of creation. This is obviously in contradiction with theistic evolution that doesn’t have man on the scene until billions of years after “the beginning.” Have these “thinkers” thought through that?

and they have been presented the face of Christianity that YOU PRESENT.

So, they’ve been presented with the biblical view that an all-good God made everything “very good” (Genesis 1:3; Deuteronomy 32:4) and justly cursed His creation as He said He would because of man’s sin (Genesis 3), which caused death and suffering to come into the world (Genesis 2:17; Genesis 3; 1 Corinthians 15:21-22). And, that a loving Savior stepped into history to save us from that sin, death, and suffering (John 3:16; Revelation 21:4)? Good. This is the gospel.

They are disgusted!

What face of Christianity would they like, then? One that isn't real? One with a sadistic, sloppy god who uses the process that kills the undesirables, helpless, old, and feeble? And what of those who have been presented with theistic evolution who have thereafter left the church? Compromising the Word of God to try to win the unsaved is a dangerous way to go. They are being sold, not converted, by tickling ears (2 Timothy 4:3). Paul became all things to all people, but he did not give up his foundation, rooted in the Old Testament.

Why would they be disgusted with a perfect God who loves us enough to take the punishment we deserve upon Himself and who offers a free gift of salvation? One reason they are disgusted may be because the gospel doesn’t “fit” with their current preconceived belief system. They are challenged. They would have to repent and change their beliefs that they have been taught much of their life and possibly change their way of life. 

Although they may believe they would be committing intellectual suicide, that simply is not so. Paul often encountered people who also didn’t like biblical teachings, but he didn’t water down or change his message. For example, he didn’t tell the Greeks to just add Christ to the multitudes of mythological gods they already worshipped. On the contrary, Paul said:

We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete. (2 Corinthians 10:5–6; ESV). 

Why should we be hindering the spread of the Gospel over a LESS THAN FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH?

This is the wrong way around. If one is telling people that God is wrong in Genesis and that God is a god of death with tumors, carnivory, thorns, pain, and suffering in the fossil record, and then they try to tell people that God is love? This is inconsistent within itself, and certainly with Scripture, and is, in fact, hindering the gospel, since billions-of-years thinking is a stumbling block for many.

It is illogical to completely remove the foundation for the gospel and then expect people to believe it anyway. If a builder came to me and tried to get me buy a house, and I asked, “What foundation does the house have, brick or block?” How do you think I would react if the builder said: “Neither, I’ll build it on sand on the beach for you.” 

This is essentially the warning that Jesus gave in the parable of the man building a house on shifting sand. If we don't put our trust in God's Word—all of it—what basis do we have for our belief? Man's ideas about the past are shifting sand. They have changed. God’s Word has not. And as the church has moved with the shifting sand, it has lost its credibility. That is a face of Christianity that is harmful.

The foundation for the gospel is Genesis, not the evolutionary myth. The good news of Jesus Christ goes back to the bad news in Genesis. This is why Paul, when discussing the gospel, relates Christ as the Last Adam, comparing Him to the first Adam in Genesis:

And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit (1 Corinthians 15:45, NKJV).

This is why Paul relates the doctrine of the sin-death relationship back to the first man in Genesis:

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned (Romans 5:12, NKJV). 

Teach God's love, the cross, mercy- those are TRUE

Yes, those are. But the position taken in this letter is that other parts of God’s Word isn’t true or worthwhile. God is the truth (John 14:6), and His Word is truth (John 17:17). If you really love God, then love His Word. When you love His Word, then you have a basis for the cross and for mercy. God mercifully offers us what we don’t deserve: salvation through His Son Jesus Christ, the perfect sacrifice for sin, and the hope that our bodies will be glorified and curse-free in the future.

What basis does one use for deciding which part is to be read as is and which part is to be glossed over? If that is what you teach others, I would expect them to further question the parts that you say are essential. For example, why believe in the virginal conception? Or the sinless life of Christ? Or His resurrection? After all, any “thinking” person knows these things can’t happen (of course, these aren't a problem for an all-knowing and all-powerful God!). And down the slippery slope one could easily continue.

There is no need to combine the false religion of evolution with God’s Word. Was Aaron praised for making a calf that was intended to represent the true God? Did Paul allow the early church to enforce the Hebrew practice of circumcision? Were the Israelites praised for worshipping Baal rather than or even in addition to God? I see the same relationship here. 

It's time to give up holding on to the false religion of our day (molecules-to-man evolution), and the disbelief about what God says in Genesis. It is time to return to the authority of the Word of God:

Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four–footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. (Romans 1:22–25, NKJV)

In kindness in Christ,

For more responses like this see Bodie Hodge's Confound the Critics book:


Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist since 1998 helping out in various churches and running an apologetics website. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.  

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children. 

Originally at Answers in Genesis; Edited; Republished by permission.




[1] Note that if someone was referring to a Christ other than He who is described in the Bible, then it is a false Christ and a false gospel and they would not be saved. A false Christ cannot save you. 

[2] G. Richard Bozarth, The Meaning of Evolution, American Atheist, p. 30. 20 September 1979.

Friday, August 8, 2025

The Framework Hypothesis—Another Compromised View

The Framework Hypothesis—Another Compromised View

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, August 8, 2025 (Donate)

With the bombardment of the idea of “millions of years” in the 1800s and 1900s, many Christians didn’t know what to do with it. Some Christians (e.g., Scriptural geologists) fought against it and recognized that rock layers were largely from the Flood of Noah as opposed to slow gradual accumulations over millions of years. Good for them—they had it right!

However, a number of leading theologians decided to mix this origins story with the Bible (this is called syncretism or compromise). So, they decided to put millions of years of rock layers into Genesis 1 before Adam and deleted a global flood to a little local Flood. They knew they couldn’t fit millions of years between Adam and Christ.

Image from Presentation Library

One popular view was gap theory (Thomas Chalmers), another was day-age/progressive creation[1] (Hugh Miller) and another theistic evolution (Asa Gray). In this article, I want to discuss another compromised view that showed up later than these other three and is a little less known—Framework Hypothesis.

 

Compromised positions; Image from Presentation Library

The Framework Hypothesis was developed largely by Meredith Kline in the late 1950s. Since then, it is a view held by some theologians and scholars who attempt to reconcile the Genesis creation account with long-age or evolutionary interpretations of origins.

According to the Framework Hypothesis model, the six days of creation in Genesis 1 are not meant to be understood as literal, chronological 24-hour days. Instead, they are viewed as a literary framework or poetic structure that conveys theological truth, but not historical or scientific fact. This interpretation often divides the creation week into two triads of days:

  • Days 1–3: Formation (light and darkness, sky and sea, land, and vegetation)
  • Days 4–6: Filling (sun, moon, stars; birds and sea creatures; land animals and man)

Proponents argue that this literary parallelism is meant to be symbolic rather than literal history. And with this, they then argue that evolutionary origins are perfectly acceptable. Thus, it is simply a model to reject the plain and straightforward reading of Genesis 1 to try to justify accepting an evolutionary worldview with millions and billions of years of earth history before Adam and Eve.

Why Reject The Framework Hypothesis? The Framework Hypothesis should be rejected for several biblical, theological, and hermeneutical reasons.

It Undermines The Authority of Scripture

The plain reading of Genesis 1 indicates God created everything in six literal, consecutive 24-hour days. This is supported by the repeated phrase: “And there was evening and there was morning, the first day,” etc. as well as subsequent passages like Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17. The grammar and structure are written as a literal historical narrative, not poetry.

The Framework Hypothesis, by treating the text as figurative or literary, undermines the authority and clarity of the Bible. Furthermore, it elevates autonomous human interpretations and external ideas like secular humanistic interpretations of origins above the plain meaning of the text.

Lack of Church Support Historically

Just as powerful is that no subsequent Bible author, church father, or reformer ever held to the Framework Hypothesis. The whole reason the Framework idea was developed was to mix the secular religion with a Christian worldview by reinterpreting Genesis for an evolutionary worldview.

The lack of support from later Bible authors should be a noted and highlighted. Proper interpretation uses Scripture to interpret Scripture. Yet, Bible authors repeatedly held to Genesis as literal narrative, not a poetic view for an evolutionary origins account.

Framework Hypothesis Contradicts The Biblical Definition Of A Day

Genesis 1 clearly defines a “day” as an evening and a morning. The Hebrew word for day (yom) when combined with a number and the phrase “evening and morning,” always refers to a normal, literal day in Old Testament usage.

The Framework view disregards these contextual clues and reinterprets them based on modern secular assumptions rather than biblical ones. That should be a big red flag.

Framework Hypothesis Disconnects Genesis From The Rest Of Scripture

Genesis 1 is foundational to the rest of Genesis. Genesis is foundational to the rest of the Bible. So, Genesis 1 had better be interpreted correctly. Other parts of Scripture treat the creation account as historical truth. For example:

  • Exodus 20:11 (part of the Ten Commandments) says (NKJV): For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. This command is based on the literal pattern of God's creative work.
  • Jesus in Mark 10:6 references the creation of male and female as occurring “from the beginning of creation,” not after billions of years.

The Framework Hypothesis would require that these references are also metaphorical or mistaken, which creates more theological problems (e.g., violated the concept of a week) and greatly undermines the reliability of Scripture. Consider a major theological problem in the next section

Death Before Sin

The Framework Hypothesis has a firm belief in an old earth and evolutionary processes, both of which require death, suffering, and disease for millions of years before man appeared. This contradicts the biblical teaching that death entered the world through Adam’s sin (Genesis 1:29-31 coupled with the curse in Genesis 3, Deuteronomy 32:4, Romans 5:12 [human death] and Romans 8).

If animals and humans were dying for ages before the Fall, the gospel's foundation is compromised because death and suffering would be labeled very good and perfect (Genesis 1:31, Deuteronomy 32:4). Are we to believe that death and suffering—the punishment for sin—is actually good, wonderful, and perfect instead? No. Thus, death could not enter into creation until after sin—death is a repercussion and punishment for sin. This is why we have a sin-death problem that Christ needed to solve through His death, burial, and resurrection.

Death before sin undermines the Gospel of Christ coming to rescue us from our sin and the death we caused in creation; Image from Presentation Library

Framework Hypothesis Reflects Compromise With Secular Thinking

The Framework Hypothesis as an attempt to accommodate secular views of origins, particularly those involving deep time and evolution. Rather than allowing Scripture to interpret itself, this hypothesis imposes extra-biblical ideas onto the text.

Christians must begin with the Bible as their supreme authority, not reinterpret it to fit current secular models or cultural pressures. Secular humanism is a false religion and there is no reason for Christians to succumb to that religion and mix it with their Christianity.

Conclusion

The Framework Hypothesis is an unbiblical compromise that undermines the authority, clarity, and even the foundation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

By denying the literal, historical nature of the creation week, it introduces confusion, misrepresents God’s Word, and opens the door to further reinterpretations of Scripture based on human reasoning rather than Christ’s revelation. It is not too hard for an all-powerful God to create the universe in six literal 24-hour days approximately 6,000 years ago, as plainly revealed in Genesis 1. 


Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist since 1998 helping out in various churches and running an apologetics website. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.  

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children. 



[1] Progressive creation is a later variation of day-age.

Wednesday, August 6, 2025

Doctrine, An Introduction

Doctrine, An Introduction

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, August 6, 2025 (Donate)

Do you wear clothes? Have you ever heard of marriage? Do you enjoy weekends?

Wearing clothes, the institution of marriage, the concept of a week and weekends, and much more are doctrines of the Christian faith. The word “doctrine” seems to be lost in many churches today, yet doctrine guides every aspect of a believer’s faith, life, origins, and practice.

What Is Doctrine?

The term "doctrine" refers to a set of beliefs or teachings based strictly on God’s Word that are held and promoted by the Church as authoritative. Many of these are core, foundational truths that guide all aspects of a believer’s life.

Image from Presentation Library

Doctrines are developed because we take God and His Word as the absolute starting point—what greater foundation could there be? From there, we study what God reveals in the Bible and develop doctrines based on specific studies of His Word.

When we study God, we are engaging in theology—the doctrine based on Scripture about who He is (i.e., the character and person of God) and what He is like (i.e., the nature of God). The Greek word theos means "God," and -ology means "the study of," so the doctrine of God is called theology. In modern times, the term theology has come to mean the study of any major biblical topic.

Key Doctrines of Theology

Doctrines include beliefs about all three persons of the Godhead, which can be studied separately or collectively as the Triune God (Triadology):

  • Triune God (Triadology)
  • God (Theology)
  • Christ (Christology)
  • Holy Spirit (Pneumatology)

Doctrines Rooted in Genesis

Doctrine also includes beliefs about Creation (Creationology or Creation Ex Nihilo). Few realize that every doctrine of theology—directly or indirectly—has its foundation in Genesis, particularly Genesis 1–11. Many doctrines of Christianity, as well as concepts found in other world religions, openly borrow from God’s Word because these doctrines cannot be justified within their own religious systems! Consider just a few key doctrines found in Genesis:

Doctrines About Scripture

Some of the most significant doctrines concern the Bible itself. The study of Scripture is called Bibliology, which includes:

  • Inerrancy of Scripture
  • Inspiration of Scripture
  • Authority of Scripture
  • Sufficiency of Scripture
  • Infallibility of Scripture

There are many more doctrines, including those reaffirmed during the Reformation in the 1500s (e.g., the 5 Solas), fundamental doctrines (such as love, faith, hope, and grace), and more.

The Purpose of Learning Doctrine

In future installments, the aim is to provide an overview of a wide range of doctrines from a biblical authority perspective. Some doctrines are non-negotiable because the Bible is crystal clear on them.

However, in some cases, different churches interpret doctrine differently. Creeds, Confessions, and Statements of Faith outline the doctrinal positions of various denominations. In such instances, I hope to provide historical background, an overview of different positions, and encourage readers to explore these theological discussions further—whether through their local church or personal study.

In other words, this is not to convince you of specific debated doctrines but rather to educate readers on what they are so that they can investigate them in more detail if one chooses to. Within Protestant Christianity (any church that emerged from the Reformation—not Roman Catholic, Oriental, or Eastern Orthodox), most denominations agree on major doctrines. Differences typically arise in interpretations of Revelation 20, Calvinism vs. Arminianism, modes of baptism, and a few other areas—these should be addressed in future installments.

False Doctrines and Heresies

Unfortunately, some cults, groups, “churches”, and ministries deviate from sound theology and fall into error. These deviations are called false doctrines. Some leaders impose outside ideas onto Scripture, claiming to be new prophets, promoting doctrines of men, incorporating secular views, or mixing Christianity with other religions to justify their positions.

This series will also address some of these false doctrines. Where good and true doctrines are developed from Scripture, believers must use discernment and rely on Scripture to refute false doctrines that originate outside of God's Word. In fact, some doctrines are so dangerous that God Himself warns that they are doctrines of demons.

The Final Authority

In all things, God’s Word—the 66 books of the Bible—remains the supreme authority.

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist since 1998 helping out in various churches and running an apologetics website. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.  

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children. 



Doubting Thomas Was Not The Biggest Doubter!

Doubting Thomas Was Not The Biggest Doubter! Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI Biblical Authority Ministries, August 12, 2025 ( Donate ) ...