I had an idea that someone would take me to task here! Thanks for your
very clear exposition.
Dan Berger wrote:
>
> Dear Vernon,
>
> I am sorry if I am butting in, but your exchange with George is public and I
> want to point out something peripheral but very important.
>
> You wrote,
> > VJ > Yes, I certainly agree! But our faith in Christ must surely be
> > grounded in an unwavering belief in his teachings - as they
> > are recorded
> > in the gospels - and an acceptance of the things that he and the
> > apostles believed (for it is hardly logical to assume the
> > Creator would
> > be ignorant in any area!). Significant, then, that our Lord
> > believed the
> > holy writings that were available to him (which, of course,
> > included the
> > Book of Genesis). As evidence of this, consider the record of his
> > temptation in the wilderness (Mt.4:1-11) where we read of the devil's
> > assaults being consistently parried with the words 'It is
> > written...'.
>
> I welcome corrections from the theologians on the list, but it seems to me
> that your assertion smacks of monophysitism, the assertion that there was no
> true humanity in Christ. (Some Gnostic monophysites went so far as to assert
> that Jesus only pretended to be human, and did not actually eat or excrete
> or even die on the Cross.) The common assertion that "it is hardly logical
> to assume the Creator would be ignorant in any area" hides within it the
> idea that the Savior did not assume full human nature because He did not
> participate in human limitations on knowledge.
>
> This is of first importance because "what is not assumed is not redeemed."
> Orthodox Christology asserts that, while Jesus the Christ was fully divine,
> He was also fully human and so shared the common limitations of humanity --
> including being limited to the knowledge base of the time in which He became
> Incarnate.
>
> Vernon, I am not making an accusation of heresy; but you should recognize
> that orthodox Christology can logically contain the assertion that Jesus,
> Incarnate Deity though He was, need not have held full omniscience in His
> human nature. Insofar as He was God He knew what was necessary; insofar as
> He was human He did not know what He did not have "need to know."
>
> I am using "need to know" in the sense used in compartmentalized
> intelligence work -- if you are not working in a particular area you don't
> have a need to know anything in that area which is not in the public domain.
> Jesus' mission was redemption, not science -- and would knowledge of the
> actual history of the universe, as opposed to the knowledge which was at
> that time in the public domain, have really been helpful in His mission? I
> think not; it would have been irrelevant at best and harmful at worst. Think
> how much less of a hearing He'd have gotten if He had asserted such
> self-evidently crazy things as temporal relativity or an evolving universe!
> He'd have been just another raving lunatic, not even worthy of execution.
Let me first assure you that I am no Monophysite. In retrospect, I see
that the offending statement '...it is hardly logical to assume that the
Creator would be ignorant in any area!', is open to misunderstanding,
and needs to be clarified.
Clearly, the Incarnate Lord was fully human; but I cannot entirely agree
that he was necessarily 'limited to the knowledge base of the time...'.
He was surely unique among men in that he had received the Spirit
'without measure' at the beginning of his ministry (the implication
being that, through prayer, he now had a clear channel of communication
with what we might reverently refer to as 'homebase'). Isn't it
reasonable to believe, therefore, that his understanding of the veracity
of the scriptures derived not so much from the general beliefs of his
day, but from a direct confirmation from on high?. Surely, this is
something he certainly 'needed to know', for it was the foundation of
his ministry! Thus, when he uses the words 'It is written...' is he not
referring to what he understood to be the ultimate authority re matters
of truth?
To insist that Genesis 1 is a 'scientific statement', and to be treated
as such, is, I believe, incorrect. I suggest that God intended all
generations of men to accept it verbatim as an account of how things
began by divine fiat.
Sincerely,
Vernon
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm