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

Paul,

I append my responses to your comments in blue:

> 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

Yes, I have to agree with much of what you say here, but you will not be surprised to hear that the closing lines trouble me. You appear to overlook the fact that the Scriptures no longer have an effective voice in the 'origins' debate; that a 'god-of-the-gaps' mentality now rules the roost! This is a direct and obvious result of the insistence by materialists (with the willing acquiescence of the Christian scientific community) that the supernatural be not allowed 'a foot in the door'. The inevitable outcome of such blatant hijacking allows science complete freedom to dictate what is, and what is not, truth. Inevitably, the 'teeth' of God's Word are being progressively drawn, and the Sword of the Spirit, blunted.

One extremely interested party in this sorry state of affairs, I suggest, is Satan - father of lies. He is the one likely to gain most from the complete emasculation of the J-C Scriptures. It is a prize that he has worked hard to achieve - and clearly, as matters stand, everything is progressing nicely for him.
>
> 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?

But in that case, what of the record of Genesis 1? How did that arise? Surely, Adam or one of the later patriarchs received this history _by revelation_.

> 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).

But are you saying that you believe the Bible to have been divinely inspired (meaning that its many authors - each, in his own view writing naturally - were caused to write precisely what God intended) but doubt that it reveals those truths that science is incapable of discovering?

> 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?

No, I don't believe so - and for the reasons given earlier. But (putting that shoe back on the correct foot!), wouldn't you agree that human reason (subject to that potent combination, 'evil' and 'imagination', recorded in Genesis 8:21) in pursuit of an absolutist philosophy (i.e. evolution) has arbitrarily and paradoxically chosen to assume that the supernatural element of the Scriptures can have no bearing on the origins debate?

You say, "...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."

But what kind of logic is this? Why should "...God _might_ consider..." - lead inevitably to - "So the foundation of the belief in a historically-scientifically inerrant Bible is neither logically valid nor biblical." Really, Paul, you surprise me!

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,

> 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?>
 
> 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 Thu Oct 5 18:20:10 2006