Re: Non-truths that do not transform

Hi Jim, my responses to your comments are interleaved below.

>
> Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>
>> Hi Christopher,
>>
>> As promised, some observations on the 'apparent age' issue:
>>
>> You will know that, in the words of the Apostle Paul, "All
>> (Judaeo-Christian) scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
>> profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
>> in righteousness..." (AV, 2Tm.3:16).
>
> Once again, this this is a statement from a NT letter, referring to the
> OT scriptures, not "Judaeo-Christian" scripture. One can only get to
> "Judaeo-Christian" (in the sense of changing the purvue of this passage
> to include letters written after the OT texts, AND in some cases, even
> after the writing of Timothy!) by adding some assumptions, an action I
> would think you would eschew.

Yes, I take your point. My real intention in qualifying the word 'scripture' was to exclude all other claimed revelations that form the basis of alternative beliefs. However, my personal view is that the Bible, as a complete document, is covered by Paul's statement, for his words can be fairly seen to anticipate all subsequent writings by divinely-inspired authors.

>
>> Putting this another way, the Bible represents a body of _divine
>> revelation_ which (as Paul says in Eph.6:17) is intended to function
>> as the "sword of the (Holy) Spirit".
>
>
> And how, on the basis of the Genesis creation account, can you think of
> the indellible writing of Creation itself as less a thing of divine
> creation? Or less than divine expression?
> How and when, and by what power, did that "thing" with its creative
> impulse and designed-in, built-in structure and intent become somehow
> less than divine?
>
> You suggest that we should automatically subordinate the expressions in
> nature to the expressions in scripture.
> I ask, which expression is most amenable to nuancing at the human hand?
> Is it the writing on paper, or the writing in stone, ... or in the stars?
> Which of these CANNOT be limited by human constraints of thought, or
> language and translation, temporal changes in culture or tradition, and
> agendas?
>
> I'm NOT saying the message embodied in physical creation is preferred.
> I'm just saying that it is a valid and intentional second testament,
> written with a different and timeless mode of communication, intended to
> complement the first, and as such should not be dismissed.
>
> Is it really so unremarkable that Creation is incredibly discoverable,
> susceptible to progressive understanding as our bases for interpreting
> and tools for discovery increase?
>
> My sense is that the testimony of nature is both intended to be
> understandable and created to be durable and not inclined to mislead,
> else how....pray how ....can Romans 1:20 say,
> "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
> clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
> eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."?

I agree that God's revelation, both in Nature and in the Scriptures, are one - and should work, hand-in-hand, to convince the unbeliever of the eternal realities. However, as we both well know, relying entirely on the former leads to gross error. In particular, unless we understand and accept God's pronouncement on the true nature of man, of his pressing need for salvation, and of what He has provided to make this possible, then we live in complete darkness. Clearly, we find this vital information only in the Scriptures - and for that reason, I believe we have to give this aspect of divine revelation the pre-eminent place. Again, without it, we would know nothing about the supernatural and its interactions with the physical world and universe. To summarise: while the study of nature is to be commended, it is, from the point of view of man and his destiny, ancillary to scriptural revelation.

>
>> However, it is clear that this becomes a blunt (hence, useless) weapon
>> in the hand of the Christian who allows wordly wisdom to question the
>> Authority of this unique Book. Such people apparently believe that no
>> one should be _deceived_ by its claims - particularly as these relate
>> to ultimate origins and earth history.
>
> I am still baffled by folks' unwillingness to examine the handwork of
> the Creator for what it might have to say about its maker.
> It was declared "good", a pronouncement that to my knowledge was not
> rescinded.

God's assessment of His Creation as 'good' and (finally) 'very good' were made before the events of Eden - where His words were first challenged. Subsequently, things go down hill very rapidly - as revealed, for example, in Gen.6:5, 8:21; Jer.17:9.

> To think that a subordinate entity could have (or could be given) enough
> power could corrupt such a "good" thing is to cede a remarkable and
> unorthodox amount of power IMHO to the subordinate being.
> It happens in Job (to some extent), but one key aspect of the story is
> that releasing of the reins is unique.

But what of the Lord's remarks concerning Satan? Jn.8:44:45, Lk.22:31-32; Rv.12:9. These serve to confirm the reality of his being and warn us that he is our mortal enemy.

>
> You seem to speak of "worldly wisdom" as if the powerful testimony of
> Creation somehow has nothing to do with the message and substance of
> scripture.
> No message? No purpose, other than to put us here?

Creation is indeed a powerful testimony to the being and sovereignty of God. It is how we interpret what we behold that can give rise to problems such as we are currently discussing.

>
>> But, in resisting these 'deceptions', do they not imply that God
>> himself is a would-be _deceiver_? - saying one thing, but meaning
>> another? Not wishing to put too fine a point on it, Christian
>> evolutionists and 'old-earthers' believe in a God who occasionally
>> seeks to deceive - they themselves being wise to the attempted
>> deceptions. It's a bit rich, then, that when I come along with a
>> reasoned defence of 'apparent age' and a young earth you immediately
>> step in with the accusation that the Creator must, therefore, be a
>> Deceiver!
>
> That's simply not what they said. They took issue with the "reasoned
> defence", your part of the equation.
>
>>
>> In the Creator's hands, those markers which convince you and others
>> that certain entities must indeed be very old, are not necessarily
>> there to deceive, but may serve another purpose of which we are
>> completely ignorant.
>
> Why should any of God's creation be understandable at all? It clearly
> need not be so. Nothing needs to be understandable, ...unless God deems
> it to be so.
> But our experience is that it IS understandable in part. At the end of
> the day we don't know which parts are "reserved", or even if that
> assumption is correct.
> What we know is that some of it is understandable and understood, by
> God's provision on both ends.
> If any of it is understandable, that is reason enough to be cautious
> about declarations about what is and always will be unknown. History
> speaks loud and clear about the dubious "wisdom" of such declarations.
> Since we have a history of progressive discovery and understanding, then
> we can reasonably expect that we will understand more from time to time
> in the future.
> And, we can similarly expect for our understanding to be revised and
> refined as we go, ...as we learn more.
>
> So let's not be quite so quick to blow off this gift of the Creator.
>
> Ignorance by choice is not the lesson of the "talents" in scripture.
> It's not about status quo. It's about acting in good stewardship to
> create opportunity out of riches entrusted to us.
>
>> For who are we to claim that the divine parameters within which the
>> creation was accomplished are, to us, an open book?
>
> Not an open book, but at least a library nonetheless, wherein we are
> children and some volumes are even in our language and simple enough for
> us to read...in time, and sometimes with a little help.
>
>> But aside from this, I have already drawn attention to scriptural
>> information which warns that mankind faces a _spiritual antagonist_
>> -and _real_ deceiver - who, clearly, has a considerable interest in
>> seeing the Word of God rubbished and our minds diverted from the
>> truths revealed therein. We are first introduced to this powerful
>> being in Gen.3:1-15; further details appear in Job 1:6-12, 2:1-7 where
>> he is revealed as a petitioner and, even more remarkably, as God's
>> 'hatchet man'!
>
> God's hatchet man???? Oh my goodness, you must reread this story. God
> gave permission, but did not express intent in Satan's actions (assuming
> this story is historical).
> Even Jesus said he had no power save that which came of the Father!!

I suggest the account of Job is historical. Clearly, the Lord God sees some _merit_ in what Satan there proposes - the severe testing of Job's faith and his positive response providing essential teaching for future generations of His people, and bringing glory to His Holy name. When one considers the matter, it becomes clear that the granting of such requests (undoubtedly many, and ongoing!) is always intended to secure _long term_advantages - foreseen by the Lord - that are in harmony with His ultimate puposesl

>
>> This last observation strongly suggests that the outworking of God's
>> agenda contains elements (like the crucifixion) that we cannot
>> possibly understand - indeed, were never intended to understand;
>> nevertheless, because they are clearly recorded they cannot, sensibly,
>> be ignored.
>
> Actually I agree that God's overall agenda is mostly quite beyond our
> ken, but I don't think your (or anyone's) personal conviction as to what
> is accessible or not is any more than that.
> A little more caution might be in order because the passage of time has
> historically not favored those who make these sorts of assertions.

We read in Dt.29:29, "The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever..." Jim, I do no more that use the information that has been revealed to us in God's Word.

>
> Moreover, isn't there just the tiniest bit to worry about in discounting
> God's physical creation and intent this way and attributing this kind of
> power to His adversary?

No, for the Scriptures make it quite clear that the Creator is _sovereign_. Like the rest of us, Satan is but _a creature_.

>
>>
>> So I suggest that you (and others) who reject the biblical account of
>> creation and of earth history (having, in effect, already judged God,
>> and found him wanting) are being tested by these 'wonders in the
>> heavens'. Such 'theatricals' are clearly within the scope of a being
>> who delights to deceive - and, for reasons which are completely beyond
>> our understanding, is being _allowed_ to deceive.
>
> Your interpretation. I hope that is not a significant offense to the one
> who holds the REAL power! Isn't there scripture that relates to
> attributing to Satan that which is the work of God?
>
>> As Christians, it is wise that we always remember that His thoughts
>> and ways are completely beyond our own. He has an _agenda_; whether we
>> like it or not, its fulfilment inevitably involves us!
>
> Missed again.
> They are not completely beyond our own understanding or we would not
> have any basis for our Christianity.
> We might have a theology, but not a Christianity.

While there may be things He has graciously revealed to us, the _general principle_ is recorded for our consideration in Is.55:8-11.

> These folks you address are not rejecting the biblical account. That's
> another Vern perspective.

But wouldn't you say that for many (or so it appears), the Scriptures are made to play 'second fiddle' to the claims of science?
>
> Regards - JimA
>
Regards,

Vernon
Received on Mon May 2 10:31:06 2005