Vernon Jenkins wrote:
> 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!
"Original sin" is no euphemism but a summary description of the fact that all
human beings start life in the condition that you describe.
> 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..
What I have said is that that unregenerate humans are able to satisfy the second
table of the law. Of course that doesn't happen without God's preservation, concurrence,
and governance. Nothing does.
> > 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.
Certainly. So point out the incorrect interpretations involved in radiometric
dating which lead to an age of ~4.5 x 10^9 years.
Original sin, profound as you wish to make it, has disappeared from the problem.
Show what's wrong with the scientific argument. If you can't do that then you're reduced
to just saying in general terms that there _must_ be something wrong with it because of
sin. & that could be said about any scientific claim, leaving us with no certainty that
we know anything about the world.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
> 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
>
> http://www.otherbiblecode.com
>
> 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 - 20:56:59 EST