Hi George,
Thanks for your comments. Please forgive the delay in my responding.
> GM: "Vernon raises a valid question here: If we take the idea of original sin
seriously, how can we trust our reasoning about the world that leads to conclusions
such as evolutionary theory, the age of the earth, &c?"
VJ: I'm glad you see the relevance of my observations to the matters discussed in
this forum. However, I believe the biblical strictures concerning man's essential
nature to be more penetrative than you seem prepared to admit, and observe that you
immediately confirm my thesis by introducing the euphemism _original sin_. This, you
must agree, severely blunts the potency of the biblical text, viz "enemy of God,
creature of evil imaginations, deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked" -
and effectively consigns them to the underside of the carpet! So the question
remains, How does it come about that a body of Christians (reliably informed of this
general affliction) coolly ignore so fundamental a matter when engaging in debate on
how they and the world came to be?
> GM: But as an objection to those conclusions, the argument won't hold up. First,
original sin has to do primarily with our relationship with God - we are unable to
have "true fear of God and true faith in God." Of course that has implications for
the way we deal with other people and the natural world as well. But even those who
have held a very tough view of original sin have not denied that the natural human
being is capable of understanding the 10 Commandments as civil law, and are able to
refrain from murder, adultery, &c. I.e., even fallen humanity is capable of
functioning in the world - & this requires some understanding of the world.
VJ: By suggesting that man is able, of himself, to control his natural bias toward
evil you are misinterpreting the clear words of Scripture. The truth is that God has
done, and continues to do, much to override many of man's malevolent designs - thus
preventing him from consigning himself and the world to annihilation. I believe the
term 'common grace' is used to describe this divine overlay of restraining
influence..
> GM: Secondly, no one raises the original sin objection to the results of science
when they're not being related to issues of origins or age of the earth. When nuclear
physicists measure decay rates of some isotopes carefully & say that half a sample
_would_ decay in 4.5 x 10^9 yr or whatever, nobody says "But original sin is
distorting your reason so we can't trust that result." It's then incumbent on the
person raising this objection to the age of the earth to say at just what stage of
applications of scientific results to radioactive dating original sin introduces an
error.
VJ: I was not suggesting that a scientist would blatantly lie when recording his
actual observations - though he might choose to ignore those that did not meet his
preconceived ideas of what they should be. But, as a physicist, you will know that
the step from 'observation' to 'interpretation' involves certain (usually unwritten)
assumptions. I suggest that it is here that some distortions might arise if there are
Bible- or God-honouring implications. Of course, one advantage that the Christian has
over the unbeliever is that he is a committed _supernaturalist_, and will (hopefully)
have learned much from the Book of Job and God's engineering of an enemy's (viz
Ahab's) downfall (1Ki.22:1-37). He will therefore accept that what appears to be a
purely _natural_ event might well incorporate a supernatural element (even a
deception!). In other words, the commonly held belief among scientists that their
observations are necessarily free from external intelligent interference may, on
occasion at least, be a fiction.
To summarise: The Bible warns us of man's essential nature; the implications being
that he is, potentially, an unreliable observer/interpreter in all matters that have
to do with God and His Word. Such truths are now empirically verifiable and underpin
the logic of my YEC position.
Shalom,
Vernon
george murphy wrote:
> Vernon raises a valid question here: If we take the idea of original sin
> seriously, how can we trust our reasoning about the world that leads to
> conclusions such as evolutionary theory, the age of the earth, &c? But as an
> objection to those conclusions, the argument won't hold up.
> First, original sin has to do primarily with our relationship with God -
> we are unable to have "true fear of God and true faith in God." Of course that
> has implications for the way we deal with other people and the natural world as
> well. But even those who have held a very tough view of original sin have not
> denied that the natural human being is capable of understanding the 10
> Commandments as civil law, and are able to refrain from murder, adultery, &c.
> I.e., even fallen humanity is capable of functioning in the world - & this
> requires some understanding of the world.
> Secondly, no one raises the original sin objection to the results of
> science when they're not being related to issues of origins or age of the earth.
> When nuclear physicists measure decay rates of some isotopes carefully & say that
> half a sample _would_ decay in 4.5 x 10^9 yr or whatever, nobody says "But
> original sin is distorting your reason so we can't trust that result." It's then
> incumbent on the person raising this objection to the age of the earth to say at
> just what stage of applications of scientific results to radioactive dating
> original sin introduces an error.
>
> Shalom,
>
> George
>
> George L. Murphy
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> "The Science-Theology Interface"
>
> Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>
> > John,
> >
> > You wrote (10 Mar): "As you know, we have a couple (of) YECs who lurk here
> > and sometimes post. They have a rough time of it because so many of us are
> > quick to jump on their arguments. When you get six rebuttals to a single
> > post, it does not take too long to determine that answering them is not a
> > good use of time."
> >
> > It is possible that I am one of those you had in mind. However, the point I
> > wish to make at this time has wider implications than the mere defence of
> > YEC.
> >
> > Christians on the ASA list will know that the Scriptures paint a sorry
> > picture of post-Edenic man: he is portrayed as an enemy of God and of His
> > Christ (eg Ps.2); a creature of evil imagination from his youth (Gn.8:21);
> > and deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked (Jer.17:9). A
> > devastating indictment indeed! - and one that goes a long way toward
> > explaining many of the world's ills, and the progressive undermining of God's
> > Word by generations of higher critics and a largely unbelieving and powerful
> > intellectual establishment.
> >
> > Clearly, if the biblical strictures are to be believed (and why not? - since
> > they provide the raison d'etre for Incarnation, Cross and Resurrection!) then
> > they represent a fundamental barrier to our understanding of the Creator and
> > a proper assessment of His work in creation.
> >
> > Those on this list who question the sanity of the YEC position should let us
> > know where they stand in respect of this foundational matter. Do they accept
> > God's assessment of man's essential nature, or not? If not, then why not?
> > And, if so, do they therefore proceed to accept that views so confidently
> > expressed, and conclusions so stridently declared, in respect of earth and
> > life history may be merely the fruits of potentially-flawed cognitive
> > processes? - perhaps living examples of the 'evil imaginations' we read about
> > in Gen.8:21!
> >
> > I suggest it behooves us all to accept gracefully, and with humility, that we
> > can be hopelessly wrong in our understanding of what is, and what is not
> > true. That is why God has deemed it necessary to provide us with a body of
> > 'revealed truth' . If we are wise, we will grasp this as does a drowning man
> > the lifebelt thrown him!
> >
> > Sincerely, and with regards,
> >
> > Vernon
> >
> > http://www.otherbiblecode.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 16 2002 - 18:16:55 EST