Re: [asa] Re: How to approach YECs was Empiricism, Faith and Science

Paul,

I am still in the process of digesting what you have written in response to my posting of 29 Sep., and will write again concerning these particulars. However, I have to say that it is most unfortunate that my parallel submission to the forum did not arrive; and, again, that you quoted only the latter part of what I had written. I'm sure you would agree that in the absence of a background to the words which have drawn your fulsome response, interested parties may well wonder what this is all about. I therefore take this opportunity of quoting in full the text of my original, as follows:

Following my comments on the popular dictum, 'nothing supernatural, please', permit me to ask what you make of Job 1:6-12 and 2:1-7. As I see it, we are here given 'snapshots' of what must constantly be taking place in the courts of heaven as the Lord exercises control over his creation - guiding it inexorably toward its intended fulfilment.

Clearly, certain potential implications are associated with this view. For example, is it now reasonable to believe that scientists are completely free to pursue what they believe to be _meaningful_ lines of inquiry when these must inevitably result in the undermining of the revealed truth of the J-C Scriptures? How could they possibly know whether or not their observations
were being stage-managed by the Devil?

Paul, in view of such possibilities, I would expect you to vigorously refute my understanding that these snapshots represent precious fragments of revealed truth. But, on what grounds?

Paul, I am disappointed that you have failed to address the matter of the 'snapshots' and their implications. Can such passages as Job 1:6-12 and 2:1-7 be 'interpreted' to mean something different from their account of actual meetings, actual discussions and actual consequences? And if, in your view they must be accepted as real events, what might we usefully glean from them?

Vernon
www.otherbiblecode.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Seely" <PHSeely@msn.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>; "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Re: How to approach YECs was Empiricism, Faith and Science

> Vernon wrote,
> For
> example, is it now reasonable to believe that scientists are completely free
> to pursue what they believe to be _meaningful_ lines of inquiry when these
> must inevitably result in the undermining of the revealed truth of the J-C
> Scriptures? How could they possibly know whether or not their observations
> were being stage-managed by the Devil?>>
>
> Since God commanded humans to "subdue he earth" (Gen 1:28) which entails
> understanding it and since we are commanded to love God with All of our
> _mind_ (Matt 22:37), and since Scripture assumes that humans can interpret
> the world around them correctly (Matt 16:3, et al) even to the extent that
> alleged divine prophecy can be tested by humanly interpreted empirical
> evidence (Deut 18:22), and since the history of science shows increasing
> understanding of the world around us proven by advances in technology, it is
> unbiblical and irrational to suppose that God is allowing the Devil to so
> control the minds of scientists that their scientific findings will
> inevitably undermine the revealed truth of Scripture.
>
> The Scriptures say clearly that all humans outside of Christ are blinded to
> the gospel, but no Scripture says they are blinded to scientific truth.
>
> Further, I believe the shoe is on the other foot. When those who believe the
> history in the Bible is a revelation from God they do not find any Scripture
> saying this, and all of the historians who wrote Scripture say or imply that
> their sources of knowledge were human documents or testimonies. No biblical
> historical book claims or implies that its historical facts were revealed by
> God. So where does this faith in the inerrancy of the biblical history (and
> science) come from?
>
> It comes from the argument that since God inspired all of the Bible and
> since God cannot lie or err that none of the Bible lies or errs and hence
> the history is inerrant. The first problem with this argument is that
> inspiration is not the same thing as revelation. Stephen was inspired, but
> everything he said in his review of history was known already. It was not
> revealed to him. It was not revelation even though it was inspired (Matt
> 10:19, 20;Acts 7).
>
> The second thing that is wrong with this argument is that HUMAN REASON in
> pursuit of an absolutist philosophy has arbitrarily chosen to define "err"
> strictly in terms of factual knowledge, when logically and biblically it can
> just as well be a matter of wisdom, and God might consider it an error of
> wisdom to speak to ancient people in terms of how things really are rather
> than in terms of how those people at that time understood the world around
> them So the foundation of the belief in a historically-scientifically
> inerrant Bible is neither logically valid nor biblical. And that raises a
> question: if the belief in an absolutely inerrant Bible is based on a
> logically invalid and unbiblical argument, why is it believed so intently?
> Sure, it is an emotionally satisfying belief, but is that enough to account
> for the strong rejection of scientific truths verified by objective and
> dovetailing evidence? Could it be that this extreme belief is due in part
> to Satanic influence?
>
> Paul S.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 3 16:02:09 2006