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

FYI, there are some fairly good, concise comments about the "two
books" in Spurgeon's "Treasury of David" entry on Psalm 19 (Spurgeon
is an author that many YEC's will trust):

"In his earliest days the psalmist, while keeping his father’s flock,
had devoted himself to the study of God’s two great books—nature and
Scripture; and he had so thoroughly entered into the spirit of these
two only volumes in his library that he was able with a devout
criticism to compare and contrast them, magnifying the excellency of
the Author as seen in both. How foolish and wicked are those who
instead of accepting the two sacred tomes, and delighting to behold
the same divine hand in each, spend all their wits in endeavouring to
find discrepancies and contradictions. We may rest assured that the
true 'Vestiges of Creation' will never contradict Genesis, nor will a
correct 'Cosmos' be found at variance with the narrative of Moses. He
is wisest who reads both the world-book, and the Word-book as two
volumes of the same work, and feels concerning them, 'My Father wrote
them both.'"

But in commenting on Ps 19 Spurgeon raises another issue which may be
more important to "push" with YECs. This is the issue of God's
immanence, and the tendency of many believers to uncritically adopt a
quasi-deistic view of nature. Spurgeon quotes Edward Hitchcock who
wrote this in 1867:

""The eminent saints of ancient times were watchful observers of the
objects and operations of nature. In every event they saw the agency
of God; and, therefore, they took delight in its examination. For
they could not but receive pleasure from witnessing the
manifestations of his wisdom and beneficence, whom they adored and
loved. They had not learned, as we have in modern times, to interpose
unbending laws between the Creator and his works; and then, by giving
inherent power to these laws, virtually to remove God away from his
creation into an ethereal extramundane sphere of repose and
happiness. I do not say that this is the universal feeling of the
present day. But it prevails extensively in the church, and still
more in the world. The ablest philosophers of modern times do,
indeed, maintain that a natural law is nothing more than the uniform
mode in which God acts; and that, after all, it is not the efficiency
of the law, but God’s own energy, that keeps all nature in motion;
that he operates immediately and directly, not remotely and
indirectly, in bringing about every event, and that every natural
change is as really the work of God as if the eye of sense could see
his hand turning round the wheels of nature. But, although the ablest
philosophy of modern times has reached this conclusion, the great
mass of the community, and even of Christians, are still groping in
the darkness of that mechanical system which ascribes the operation
of this natural world to nature’s laws instead of nature’s God."

Kirk

On Jun 23, 2008, at 11:06 AM, Dehler, Bernie wrote:

> 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).

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 19:22:28 2008