Because of the many weaknesses we have detailed in this little treatise, your author has never accepted the Gap Theory. Unlike other doctrines that may need some study or explanation to grasp, the Genesis Gap does not have one clear, explicit verse that even says a gap exists! The whole Gap system is built upon speculation, conjecture, theorizing, supposition, and imagination. Real Bible doctrines that are controversial like the pre-tribulation rapture, pre-millennial return of Christ, election, baptism, tongues, sabbath, triune God, Old Testament law, New Testament grace, etc., etc., all have an explicit basis in Scripture even if some elements are implicit. That is, the Bible clearly states Christ will return, there will be a rapture, there is a baptism, there is an elect, etc., the controversy is primarily about when they occur, how they are applied, or to whom they apply...but the Genesis Gap Theory stands alone with no explicit statement that it even exists. Even the implicit passages used to justify it are very weak. It is a contrived doctrine based upon even other implicit teachings that make it ripe for speculation, conjecture, and imagination. Again, take heed, Brethren, take heed.
In view of the Gap Theory's scriptural deficiencies, to call it a "Gap Fact" is a gross misrepresentation and clear overstatement. Facts can be proven, but in spite of the spirited attempts of its proponents to do so, the Gap has not been proven, not by a long shot. It remains a mere theory and a weak one at that. In response Gap Theorists will often appeal to Isa 28:10, 13 and claim the Gap cannot be found in one passage; it must be pieced together "precept upon precept; line upon line...here a little, and there a little," but all this is to no avail. All the pieces they appeal to more easily refer to other things and other doctrines. No matter how much they try to massage the often obscure and ambiguous passages they appeal to, the Genesis Gap remains nothing more than speculation.
It is actually because some brethren began calling the Gap Theory the "Gap Fact" that your author wrote this work. When it was just theory or opinion, people could "take it or leave it," but insisting it is a "Fact," is a whole other concept. If something is a proven fact then those who don't accept it are in doctrinal error and can be charged with "not believing the Bible." It is no longer a matter of opinion. With this "fact" claim the Gapists have made themselves the final arbiters of truth. If the scriptural proof was present to prove a Gap, the Scriptures themselves would condemn the non-believers, but since they don't explicitly present a Genesis Gap, the Gapists make themselves the standard.
Note: From studying both issues extensively from a Biblical perspective, your author has found the Flat Earth Theory held by some believers today has more apparent circumstantial support from the Scriptures than the Gap Theory...and the Flat Earth contention is nonsense! Yes, the Gap Theory is that weak.
(One of the means God uses to reveal Himself is the observation of the "heavens" and nature (Psa 19:1) but the Flat-Earthers reject this knowledge. The same goes for globe Geocentrism. See our book, King James Cosmology.)
The Bible says a believer should "prove all things" (1Th 5:21). As Dr. Ruckman says in his commentary of this verse, "You are to believe NOTHING till it has stood the test of PROOF." But in spite of the Genesis Gap contentions of Dr. Ruckman himself, plus C. I. Scofield, Clarence Larkin, and even Finis J. Dake, all men your author admires for their great labor in the word, he cannot follow them concerning the Genesis Gap. Not one element of it can be proven.
The simple fact is if one can't prove a doctrine from the Scriptures, it is NOT a Bible fact. "Prove all things."
To "prove" basically means "to try or test" something to see if it meets a certain standard (Exo 20:20; Luke 14:19) or to determine if something is true to what it claims (Act 24:13, 25:7). Once something is proved it can act as "proof" (2Co 2:9, 8:24).
With written words to prove something that's being alleged usually requires an explicit statement of fact or very highly implicit circumstantial statements. Take Satan, for instance. The Bible explicitly states that Satan exists and is also known as the Devil (Rev 12:9, 20:2 , 7, etc.), but it only implicitly states that he is the "god" or "prince of this world" (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11; 2Co 4:4). However, that Satan is the "god of this world" is very strongly implied because of other circumstantial verses that link him to the world (Mat 4:8, Luke 4:5; Rev 12:9) plus the context the passages are found in. The evidence is so strong that it is almost universally agreed that Satan is this "god" and "prince." It would be fair to say that in a court of law this determination would hold true.
On the other hand, concerning Lucifer, there is no passage that states or even implies that Satan is (or was) Lucifer by name. As we mentioned earlier, the passages in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 which are often linked with Satan only suggest he is/was Lucifer because some of the statements cannot literally apply to a human being, and Satan is the only being many reasonable people surmise they could apply to. However, one can also make a reasonable case that the passages do NOT apply to Satan. As a consequence the implication that Satan is/was Lucifer is much weaker than the belief he is the "god of this world."
Since Satan is/was Lucifer cannot be proven absolutely, the reader should not make any absolute claims concerning this or any other implied belief. He should say, "The Bible indicates or suggests..." that this or that may be true. By no means should he call such an implied belief a "fact." By doing so he is discrediting himself.
Your author has often wondered why some Fundamentalists and Bible Believers cling so tightly to the Genesis Gap Theory. Since it is a relatively recent idea, only around 200 years old, and first promoted by believers they would today deem as "liberal" or "modernistic," it seems counter-intuitive to their typical conservative approach to the Scriptures. Especially since Chalmers, et al., said the King James Bible mistranslated Genesis 1:2 and based his main argument on "correcting" it. But that it was unknown for so long may actually may be part of its appeal; it is a doctrine that is "hidden" from the average believer; one most others "can't see" unless they are part of a select group with "secret" knowledge (Psa 25:14; Amos 3:7, etc.).
It would not be hard to imagine that if instead of 200 years ago the Genesis Gap Theory was first brought to prominence today by some "New Evangelical," Pentecostal, or even Baptist minister, the Bible Believers would dismiss it as fantasy. They would relegate it into the same group of false or misapplied doctrine as they do speaking in tongues, slain in the spirit, British Israelism, baptism for the dead, sabbath keeping, abstaining from meats, baptismal regeneration, post-millennialism, soul sleep, hell is the grave, universal salvation, open theism, etc., etc. However, since the Gap Theory was initially accepted by some conservative believers as a stopgap against modern geology, it creeped into the Fundamentalist mainstream. In addition, each succeeding generation some have embellished more and more doctrine upon it until they have essentially backed themselves into a corner.
Today there are numerous books and novels on the pre-Adamic earth describing a vast worldly empire ruled by Lucifer as its "king;" then an "angelic revolt" took place that resulted in a "universal war" of good against evil resulting in Lucifer being cast down from his throne while the universe was being destroyed by water. Then after the "recreation" of the earth Satan schemes through Eve to get back "his" world from its new ruler, Adam.... This scenario sounds like a modern day movie script, but much of it is actually taught as "fact" by many of the Gapists. They have so much invested in their dramatic and far-fetched doctrine that many would not consider publically questioning it even if they personally have "mental reservations." They couldn't bear to admit possible error and "lose face."
Being a Bible Believer for over 35 years, your author has learned quite a bit about the mentality and demeanor of some of his fellow brethren. Another trait that a significant number of them share is a marked insecurity in some of their "Bible Believing positions." In your author's view, the key reason for this is these believers have not personally studied many of the doctrines they profess to believe (or if they have, they realize some are on shaky ground). They "learned" them by following someone they admire, and this makes their faith a type of implicit faith. True, the Bible says one can follow a more mature and knowledgeable believer in his Christian walk, as they follow Christ (1Cor 11:1), but if one bases practically his entire belief system on what doctor or pastor so-and-so says, he will only have confidence in a man's view of God's word, not God's word itself. He is still to personally "prove all things." As a wise man once said, "If two people believe the same about the Bible, only one of them is doing the thinking."
Unfortunately, too much of this mentor worship goes on in Fundamentalist/Bible Believer circles. It is self-evident. All one need do is make a statement that may question a certain position held by a believer's esteemed mentor and the defensiveness will start. If the position questioned is sound and can be proven by the believer, why doesn't he just prove it and settle the matter right then? The reason is most often the believer doesn't know any more about the subject in question than he heard from his mentor. His faith is implicit; dependent upon his mentor's faith.
Your author all too well realizes that his questioning the Genesis Gap view of certain prominent ministers, particularly that of Dr. Peter Ruckman, will bring out the flesh in some of the brethren. Instead of truly looking at the Gap issue themselves, studying it out, and proving it, they will instantly become defensive and even combative thinking they are "defending" their mentor and by proxy defending the Scriptures. Often their defensiveness is manifested by ridicule, mockery, belittlement, denigration, and plain old name-calling. Some of these believers may even be pastors or other ministers yet their rank immaturity rules them in this regard. We can almost hear some of them now,
"Who do you think you are, Morton? Dr. Ruckman (or Scofield, or Larkin, or Dake, etc.) was a great man of God, a hero of the faith, and a great Bible teacher. He knew more about the word of God than you will ever dream of knowing...and some "pip-squeak" like you, a "nobody from nowhere," thinks he knows more about the Bible than Dr. Ruckman? You are an idiot, a self-deceived fool, a 'Bible blockhead' an ...."
Whether this is true of us or not, the fact remains that in spite of his much ability and many achievements, Dr. Ruckman (and the others) has not proven a Genesis Gap exists (let alone all the added embellishments.) In fact, it is not even adequately inferred. Most certainly they all make the best case they can, but it is still very weakly evidenced by the Scriptures. There is much more scriptural "evidence" for speaking in tongues, universal salvation, or open theism than there is for the Genesis Gap, but cherry-picked evidence does not prove sound doctrine. One must consider the Bible as a whole.
The way a mature believer reacts to a challenge of one of his beliefs is to "prove all things" (1Th 5:21). He will get in the Bible and try his best with study and prayer to find if the Scriptures actually prove a particular belief. If they do prove it, the believer has his answer for the questioner. If it can't be proven scripturally, then the believer must not go beyond that, even if it disagrees with his mentor's or church's position.
Finally, your author understands there is a notable segment of believers who will ride their mentor's coat-tails until death regardless of the facts. They can't entertain the thought that their hero could be wrong on any doctrinal point. However, some believers will remain objective and attempt to prove their mentor's doctrines from the Scriptures. This is the "noble" course of action. Remember how the Bereans were called "more noble" because they "searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so" (Act 17:11)? They were checking the words of a God called apostle commissioned directly by the Lord Jesus Christ. If the apostle Paul's words should be checked against the Scriptures, how much more any minister of today?