Re: [asa] Creationism Conference (Book 1 and 2)

Interesting discussion. I've been studying Ps 19 to present the "two
books" idea to some college students later this summer, and my views
are somewhere between the two sides presented below.

It seems to me that nature DOES tell us something about God, but this
is limited mainly to telling us of His power, not of His person (Ps
19, Rom 1). Interestingly, Ps 19:1-6 (speaking of nature) refers to
God as "El" while Ps 19:7-14 (speaking of Scripture) uses His
personal name, YHWH. I believe this contains a subtle implication
that nature does not lead to a personal relationship with God. In
this sense (personal relationship with God) I would agree with George
that general revelation is certainly subordinate to special revelation.

But in the more general sense of "revealing truth", I am not
comfortable saying that either form of revelation takes precedence
over the other. I don't believe that either one is "more true" than
the other, any more than the New Testament is "more true" than the
Old. The two forms of revelation have two different functions, so
perhaps we could say that each is "better" at its own function
(nature at revealing the works of God, Scripture at revealing the
person of God), but I'm not comfortable saying that either one is
"better" in general.

I would suggest that many YEC's act as if they don't really believe
Ps 19:1; they believe that "The heavens originally declared the glory
of God, but they were corrupted when Adam fell, so that now their
declaration is ambiguous and misleading." That's not what David
wrote. He said, "The heavens are declaring the glory of God", with
no hint of untrustworthiness.

Kirk

On Jun 24, 2008, at 6:14 AM, <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:

> I hope I get help on this because I am not prepared to debate this,
> but I coudnt disagree more with George here.
>
> If what you claim is true, then why does Christ, and other biblical
> authors refer to nature in many instances to illustrate a point
> about God? Isnt the incarnation itself part of "general revelation"?
>
> And of course there is Isaiah 18 were we are told to look to the
> heavens to understand God:
>
> 18 To whom, then, will you compare God? What image will you compare
> him to? 19 As for an idol, a craftsman casts it, and a goldsmith
> overlays it with gold and fashions silver chains for it. 20 A man
> too poor to present such an offering selects wood that will not
> rot. He looks for a skilled craftsman to set up an idol that will
> not topple. 21 Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been
> told you from the beginning? Have you not understood since the
> earth was founded? 22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the
> earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the
> heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
> 23 He brings princes to naught and reduces the rulers of this world
> to nothing. 24 No sooner are they planted, no sooner are they sown,
> no sooner do they take root in the ground, than he blows on them
> and they wither, and a whirlwind sweeps them away like chaff. 25
> "To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?" says the Holy
> One. 26 Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all
> these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them
> each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not
> one of them is missing.
>
> And many many other examples. But you know this, so I think some
> clarification from you is needed because as I understand what you
> said, I dont think you could be more wrong.
>
>
>
> On Tue Jun 24 8:25 , "George Murphy" sent:
>
>
> General revelation (to the extent that there is such a thing) is
> certainly subordinate to special revelation. The former tells us
> nothing about who the true God or about the Incarnation &
> atonement. It simply doesn't speak to those crucial questions.
>
> But it really confuses things to speak about "general revelation."
> What we learn about from "the book of nature" is nature, not the
> author of nature - just as what we learn from a novel is the story
> being told, not the author. (As Ezra Pound put it, "You can always
> tell the bad critic when he starts talking about the poet instead
> of the poem.") OTOH, the purpose of God's historical revelation in
> Christ is to tell us about God, God's will for us &c & not about
> the natural world.
>
> Or use this metaphor. If (as used to be said) theology is the
> queen of the sciences, the other sciences are her ministers. They
> can't dictate to the queen. But a wise queen will listen to her
> ministers in their areas of competence. Similarly, theology should
> pay attention to what the natural sciences say about, e.g., the age
> of the earth & if necessary reconsider its interpretation of
> biblical texts in that light.
>
> My article at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2006/PSCF3-06Murphy.pdf
> deals with the two books metaphor.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dehler, Bernie
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 2:06 PM
> Subject: RE: [asa] Creationism Conference (Book 1 and 2)
>
> George Cooper said:
> “Further, to claim, as Ken Ham does in his video, that to not
> accept the day as 24 hours will cause the “collapse of
> Christianity” is yet another disquieting facet to their marketing.”
>
>
>
> I think Ken Ham is revealing his mind- according to his religious
> beliefs, his “Christianity” would be demolished if evolution were
> true… which is true.
>
>
>
> I think one thing to push with YEC’s like Ken Ham is the notion of
> God’s two books- God’s Word and God’s works. They seem to reject
> and ignore God’s works (or at least greatly minimize God’s works),
> and think that nature is subordinate to God’s word (as if “general
> revelation” is subordinate to “special revelation”). I think book
> books should be considered on the same basis- without one being
> superior to the other… or maybe “God’s works” being superior (in
> some cases) since it is provable (in some cases where it is, such
> as knowing that the Earth revolves around the Sun rather than vice-
> versa).
>
>
>
> If “God’s Word” (Book 1) says that man was made uniquely from dust
> of the Earth, but “God’s works” (Book 2) says the means of
> creation was evolution from lower life-forms, I think we should go
> with Book #2 because it brings evidence with it. In that case,
> Book 2 has precedence, or can help interpret, Book 1. YEC’s focus
> on Book 1, and ignore anything from Book 2 that is contradictory to
> Book 1.
>
>
>
> Ken Ham says he has nothing against science… he loves science.
> What he dislikes is so-called “modern science.” I guess what he
> likes is “creation science.”
>
>
>
> Just my thoughts.
>
>
>
> …Bernie
>
>
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-
> owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of George Cooper
> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 10:40 AM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] Creationism Conference
>
>
>
> It is especially disappointing for me to see the disingenuous, at
> best, approach used by some advocates for YEC in teaching others.
> To avoid or obfuscate the many lines of evidence that support BBT
> or evolution in a YEC presentation is highly unfair to others,
> especially our youth. Further, to claim, as Ken Ham does in his
> video, that to not accept the day as 24 hours will cause the
> “collapse of Christianity” is yet another disquieting facet to
> their marketing.
>
>
>
> Yesterday, I had lunch with my daughter, who’s in college, and she
> has been indoctrinated into the anti-evolution camp. When I began
> to calmly offer the idea that God uses processes to accomplish His
> will and that evolution is a very powerful and logical process,
> tears began to form in her eyes because her Dad is, apparently, not
> the Christian soldier that she hoped he would be.
>
>
>
> Since many of my church friends are YECers, I know they are sincere
> about their beliefs and don’t deserve to be called liars. Yet some
> YECers are far more knowledgeable about science and may deserve
> such harsh accusation. It is wiser not to do so, as the reason has
> now been made obvious.
>
>
>
> My personal request is to get more people here, and some seekers of
> truth within the YEC camp, to tackle the literal claims of M-
> Genesis. My attempts to get people interested in taking the ideas
> serious seems to fail, though I still await arguments that are
> logical against those claims.
>
>
>
> If Genesis was an eye-witness account, or a vision of what actually
> happened, then it should be concordant with most of mainstream
> science, especially the sciences that enjoy a confluence of
> evidence supporting their theories.
>
>
>
> A plausible literal view is all that is necessary to get many out
> of the YEC rut, IMO.
>
>
>
> Coope
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 Jun 24 12:22:56 2008