Clarification

[payattention]

While I wait for Tall73 to explain what he means by "self-revelation" I want to go on and explain the implications of my decision to found my understanding on the truth of the first two verses of Genesis. Not that I need Genesis to understand that sometime in the past an intelligent being created this universe, but given that Genesis states it we begin there. Even though the first humans were very intelligent they would have to build their knowledge base of the universe around them. This they would do in the same way that we develop our knowledge base of the universe. Because each thing reveals truth about its Creator they would also learn something about the Creator through the things they discovered in their observations. In addition there was a personal interaction between the Creator and the first humans. This is reflected in the walks God had with Adam in the cool of the day.

Sin did not remove God's imprint on the universe. Our intelligence was diminished. The original atmosphere of harmony was supplanted by disharmony. But God is still revealed in his creation. David was correct when he said that the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament sheweth his handiwork. We do not get a full understanding of God from the creation nor should we expect to. He is infinite; we are finite. But we do know that God cannot be less than the best we find in the universe. So, if I determine the best in man I can say with certainty that God is at least that. But my purpose for understanding God is not to be come an expert in that knowledge but to learn how to serve him.

Because we are made in the image of God the best way to get to know him is to get to understand other human beings. We can see God in the selfless love of a mother for a child. When a mother mistreats her offspring we all voice our disapproval, whether we are Christian or not. It is not accident that there are laws against murder even in atheistic societies. This is evidence that the imprint of the Creator is in his creatures whether they acknowledge Him or not.

It is true that our understanding of nature is often flawed but the same thing is true of our understanding of the things He declares. The only way to clarify the errors we arrive at it to constantly put our conclusions to the test.

 

[tall73]

a. What I meant was simply special revelation.

b. No one has any problems with the concept of general revelation as even the Scriptures speak to. Not only does David say this, but I already mentioned the passage in Romans where Paul uses the general revelation as a way to show that all people are aware of God through what He made.

c. I asked questions on the creation because the creation has indeed been corrupted according to Romans 8, and what we can learn there is limited more to God's power than His character in many respects.

d. I don't believe that the best way to get to know God is to study other human beings. Surely it can't hurt, but I think the best way is to study what He says about Himself...ie the self-revelation I mentioned earlier, or what is commonly called the special revelation of the Scriptures. And it is at this point that we start to have serious differences. You repeatedly say that the creation, or general revelation, is above the scriptures, or special revelation. Now to me it would seem that in fact the general revelation, obvious to all, is less important than the special revelation which He gave us. Why ? Because there are things God can clarify about Himself through the Scriptures that we could never derive from the natural creation. For instance, you say that Jesus is your master. But would the creation itself with no special revelation tell you that at all?

Moreover, you have made it perfectly clear that the only two verses you accept completely are the first two verses of the Bible. All others are open to scrutiny in a way that means that you don't take any at face value. Now that in itself I suppose is your right. But it took AGES and many pages for you to finally just tell us that, when we could have saved a lot of guessing if you just came out with it so we knew where you were coming from. In the meantime you accused Woobadooba and I of misrepresnting your views, when you made them needlessly vague. I am quite sure both he and I could have very well understood your position if you simply said at the outset what scriptures you accepted, and that general revelation was paramount to you.

However, since we do not share that view, and since it is frustrating to carry on a conversation with someone who never takes scripture at face value, because we never are able to anticipate your view on every verse, I have personally decided that I will simply ignore your comments most of the time. I don't feel like listening to why you accept one verse and not another continually based on this method of analyzing the creation.

For example, when we quote a plain statement from Paul and you say "Paul said he sees through a glass darkly" so we can't accept that he had the whole view, you make it impossible to take the scriptures by Paul seriously. Because anytime it doesn't agree with you, you attribute it to his lacking informatin. However, has it occured to you that Paul did not say HE sees through glass darkly, but that we ALL do? Therefore, why would you think your limited intellect is able to see more than Paul? Did he not have the same general revelation you do? Did he not in fact have GREATER special revelation, having Jesus appear to Him, speaking with Him, and visiting the third heaven as He talked about, where he learned unspeakable things? Yet you feel at liberty to dismiss him.

However, when you want to make a scriptural point, suddenly scripture is alive, you can quote it at will, with no fear of misapplying it. I find this to be inconsistent.

e. And this leads to my final point. while it is true there were people without the scriptures before, God gave them to reveal more of Himself than we knew simply from general revelation. I see no reason to ignore them or try to explain many of them away. Moreover I see the idea that everything should be analyzed in light of the natural creation is not that helpful to me as a guiding principle.

I can analyze all day what people are like, and it would not tell me that God sent His Son to pay for our sins.

I can analyze nature all day and it will not tell me all of God's requirements.

In fact in analyzing fallen nature we might get a false idea of His requirements.

And we can certainly put all of our conclusions to the test without stopping to think about what general revelation has to do with it at every step, when frankly, it often has little do with it.

You seem to equate not using your method to being lazy, not being scholarly, or being trapped in traditional opinions. Perhaps you might ask why, if you are really committed to free thinking, you put everything into the constraining method of looking at it through the lens of general revelation, while ignoring other forms of revelation, or if not ignoring them, making them all subject to pre-formed views. And it might be asked why you feel the need to assume that others have not done the same searching you have, have not considered other angles, but that you immediately accuse them of limited thinking. Is this not arrogance on your part? Your very first post to me was to criticize your characterization of a post you DIDN'T even read. You assumed i took the traditional view, which I didn't. You then did the same to Cliff, not reading, but commenting in a negative way. Why would you be upset with us for misrepresenting your views, when we have at least given you the benefit of reading them, and asking many clarifying questions? Despite this you continually refer to others as lacking in information that only you apparenlty can give. And then you never actually give it.

If God felt that natural revelation was enough He would not have revealed anymore. It was already available to all. Therefore I deem special revelation to be above natural, and to be more specific, imparting knowledge we could not know by nature alone.

If your view has more to offer, and if you have a full systematic approach that you weigh each scripture by, through general revelation, then post it. Otherwise, I don't have any more time for it.

 

[woobadooba]

Because there are things God can clarify about Himself through that means that we could never derive from the scriptures. For instance, you say that Jesus is your master. But would the creation itself with no special revelation tell you that at all?

Are you sure you worded this right? Did you mean to say that there are things that God can reveal about Himself that we couldn't get anywhere else but from the scriptures(without a theophany)?

 

[woobadooba]

While I wait for Tall73 to explain what he means by "self-revelation" I want to go on and explain the implications of my decision to found my understanding on the truth of the first two verses of Genesis. Not that I need Genesis to understand that sometime in the past an intelligent being created this universe, but given that Genesis states it we begin there. Even though the first humans were very intelligent they would have to build their knowledge base of the universe around them. This they would do in the same way that we develop our knowledge base of the universe. Because each thing reveals truth about its Creator they would also learn something about the Creator through the things they discovered in their observations. In addition there was a personal interaction between the Creator and the first humans. This is reflected in the walks God had with Adam in the cool of the day.

Sin did not remove God's imprint on the universe. Our intelligence was diminished. The original atmosphere of harmony was supplanted by disharmony. But God is still revealed in his creation. David was correct when he said that the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament sheweth his handiwork. We do not get a full understanding of God from the creation nor should we expect to. He is infinite; we are finite. But we do know that God cannot be less than the best we find in the universe. So, if I determine the best in man I can say with certainty that God is at least that. But my purpose for understanding God is not to be come an expert in that knowledge but to learn how to serve him.

Because we are made in the image of God the best way to get to know him is to get to understand other human beings. We can see God in the selfless love of a mother for a child. When a mother mistreats her offspring we all voice our disapproval, whether we are Christian or not. It is not accident that there are laws against murder even in atheistic societies. This is evidence that the imprint of the Creator is in his creatures whether they acknowledge Him or not.

It is true that our understanding of nature is often flawed but the same thing is true of our understanding of the things He declares. The only way to clarify the errors we arrive at it to constantly put our conclusions to the test.

Tell me something. What does a tsunami that wipes out thousands of people tell us about God? What did two planes crashing into the twin towers tell us about God? What does a child molestor, rapist or murderer, tell us about God?

Do you get my point?

 

[tall73]

Are you sure you worded this right? Did you mean to say that there are things that God can reveal about Himself that we couldn't get anywhere else but from the scriptures(without a theophany)?

Ah yes, big mistake, put the opposite of what I wanted there. Good catch!


And yes woobadooba, agree completely.

Not only that, but the creation as it is now is built around a system of destruction and survival of the fittest. Even human behavior, especially at extreme times, often exhibits this trait. Are we really learninig about God that way? We might be learning about the themes of good and evil. But sure.y God can tell us more about Himself than he can reveal through fallen creation.

Moreover, how do you explain the laws that we started this conversation in in terms of creation? what does it have to offer? That is the same question we asked all along when you were very clear to say we all had no clue becuase we were not following your method.

creation might clarify the idea about not mixing fabrics. But I dare say we wouldn't get "don't eat blood" from creation...but just the opposite.

Moreover, would nature in its fallen state say anything about homosexuality?

Of course, you might say that those particular laws should be over ruled by creation. We should apply our good sense and ignore them as faulty. But I see no justification for doing this because they are God's clarification on His will.

what would it say about the law regarding stoning children? Some parents do beat thier kids, some kill them, some don't. If you take the notion that you should go with the BEST of society, however you define that, one would assume God would never kill anyone or allow them to be killed. But this clearly contradicts not only what the scriptures say, but many examples in nature itself.

Paul, in his treatment of the subject, seems to limit the knowledge of God through nature to one primary purpose--to make everyone aware that He exists, which they then turned away from, going over to idols.

Therefore he said they were all accoutable to God, having turned away from Him, rejecting Him, though they were aware of Him from the things He made.

 

[payattention]

a. What I meant was simply special revelation.

Tell me from Scripture where you get the authority from to decide that what you call special revelation must be subject to different tools of interpretation from what you call general interpretation. That is the issue. Further, help us understand whether you believe that special revelation will tell you something about the Creator that contradicts what general revelation tells you about the Creator.

 

[payattention]

Tell me something. What does a tsunami that wipes out thousands of people tell us about God? What did two planes crashing into the twin towers tell us about God? What does a child molestor, rapist or murderer, tell us about God?

Do you get my point?

It is a failure of our theologians that you think these are pivotal questions. Briefly, they all tell us that God is constant. When his laws are either ignored or transgressed there are consequences, sometimes very disastrous. Without the fall and the entrance of sin there would never have been a child molestor, rapist or murderer. It is unfortunate that our theologians have so blinded our eyes to the true revelation of the Creator that we do not see him.

I am also disappointed from just scanning the posts about that some seem to believe that nature is restricted to this planet. Nature includes every heavenly body in the universe. We make that mistake because we have chosen to ignore David's proclamation that the heavens declare the glory of God.

 

[payattention]

Paul, in his treatment of the subject, seems to limit the knowledge of God through nature to one primary purpose--to make everyone aware that He exists, which they then turned away from, going over to idols.

Therefore he said they were all accoutable to God, having turned away from Him, rejecting Him, though they were aware of Him from the things He made.

I suggest that Paul knows more about his subject than you seem to know about Paul's treatment. He told us that often the heathen which have not the law (this special revelation) do by nature the things contained in the law. I hope you agree. Special revelation is corrective. General revelation is declarative. I would submit that we have obtained much more reliable about God from what scientists have discovered in the operations of the universe than we have from the thousands of theologians who are beholden to their particular schools of thought.

 

[payattention]

Not only that, but the creation as it is now is built around a system of destruction and survival of the fittest. Even human behavior, especially at extreme times, often exhibits this trait. Are we really learninig about God that way? We might be learning about the themes of good and evil. But sure.y God can tell us more about Himself than he can reveal through fallen creation.

Why do you think that your "can" is of more consequence than the fact of creation. The image of God has not been erased from the creation, nor is the creation limited to what you see. An aberration also reveals the original. And why do you think God will prevail over the devil? Is it not in line with every law of nature?

The laws you were concerned about were given to ignorant people who had spent 400 years in slavery and were on a trek through a wilderness. They needed direct instruction. But that need was not because it was absent but because of human choices because of the fall. The information the manufacturer gives on how his creation should be maintained is always more important than information he gives to resolve problems that arise because of misuse. That is the difference between what you call general and special revelation but you seem inclined to give the preeminence to the corrective information. That goes against everything God has revealed about Himself.

 

[payattention]

Your very first post to me was to criticize your characterization of a post you DIDN'T even read. You assumed i took the traditional view, which I didn't. You then did the same to Cliff, not reading, but commenting in a negative way. Why would you be upset with us for misrepresenting your views, when we have at least given you the benefit of reading them, and asking many clarifying questions?

Right here you are misrepresenting what I said. I said I had not yet read the rest of the post. That was because what I had to say could be said without reference to what was in the post. To say that I DIDN'T read it is not reflective of the truth. And I fail to see how anything could justify misrepresenting what you read.

 

[payattention]

d. I don't believe that the best way to get to know God is to study other human beings. Surely it can't hurt, but I think the best way is to study what He says about Himself...ie the self-revelation I mentioned earlier, or what is commonly called the special revelation of the Scriptures.

By and large the substance of the Scriptures are no different from the conclusions scientists make from their study of nature. One only need to study human history to realize that scientists are not always correct in their conclusions, but they are aware of that. Later scientists are able to advance the knowledge in that particular field but the evidence was always there. We ought to know more about God than did the ancients in the same way that we know about the sciences than did the ancients. The disciples spent more than three years with Christ and in the end they were still uninformed about Him. Just read Mark 10 and you will get a good example. In John 21:23-24 we have a stark example of how the Apostles completely misrepresented something Jesus had said because they were trying to justify a held position.

I am yet to find an example of special revelation that makes sense. Could you help me fill that void in my knowledge?

 

[woobadooba]

It is a failure of our theologians that you think these are pivotal questions. Briefly, they all tell us that God is constant. When his laws are either ignored or transgressed there are consequences, sometimes very disastrous. Without the fall and the entrance of sin there would never have been a child molestor, rapist or murderer. It is unfortunate that our theologians have so blinded our eyes to the true revelation of the Creator that we do not see him.

I am also disappointed from just scanning the posts about that some seem to believe that nature is restricted to this planet. Nature includes every heavenly body in the universe. We make that mistake because we have chosen to ignore David's proclamation that the heavens declare the glory of God.

You just don't get it. Take a trip over to the General Apologetics forum and explain this one to the atheists! They will eat you alive!

If we try to figure God out merely by nature in a sinful world, our conclusion will be that He either doesn't exist, or if He does, He doesn't care about us!

This is why we can't go by nature alone. And this is why we need special revelation! This is why we need God's word!

Truth is, if God never gave us His word, and all we had to go by is what we see happening around us, you wouldn't even believe that God existed!

Go talk to the atheists! They'll tell you all about it!

And if you did believe in God, you would be thoroughly confused about who He is. Go talk to other theists(non-Christian)who make absolute determinations about who God is through nature. Find out what they believe, and then you come back here and tell me that you don't need the word of God to know who God is!

 

[tall73]

Tell me from Scripture where you get the authority from to decide that what you call special revelation must be subject to different tools of interpretation from what you call general interpretation. That is the issue. Further, help us understand whether you believe that special revelation will tell you something about the Creator that contradicts what general revelation tells you about the Creator.

What I have said is that special revelation is not simply to be discarded in favor of general revelation, or called into constant question for no apparent reason. If you think that God was at all behind inspiring the scriptures, then there should be some thought that they reflect at least a little what He wanted to say. I have been consistent though. I agree that there are times where there might be evidence of human reasoning.But when you say that Paul cannot be listened to on any particular point because of his statement in I corinthians 13, when we were not even addressing that passage, and then to turn around and preach Paul at us when it is convenient that is nothing but inconsistency.

I suggest that Paul knows more about his subject than you seem to know about Paul's treatment. He told us that often the heathen which have not the law (this special revelation) do by nature the things contained in the law. I hope you agree. Special revelation is corrective. General revelation is declarative. I would submit that we have obtained much more reliable about God from what scientists have discovered in the operations of the universe than we have from the thousands of theologians who are beholden to their particular schools of thought.

do you really? What a surprise that you once again think me uneducated. Is it because I don't agree with you? You have said many times that we are all deluded, following the wrong method, in confusion.

The text you refer to is in the next chapter and REINFORCES the very point I made...that we are all accountable because our conscience convicts us that we have turned away from God, as a further evidence in creation of God's existence and our obligations to him. Chapters 1-3:20 are all arguing that all men are convicted before God. A point which did not escape you because I already put it in regard to our treatment of our default condition. Paul says everyone sinned, there is none righteous, so all are guilty. All here clearly included those without the law.

Perhaps we are not all as dumb as you hope.

And as to receiving more information from creation than theologians...I think you have the equation wrong. The scriptures are not what the theologians make of them , but what God said in them. It is not the theologians who you are attacking in the scriptures, but God's revelation of Himself. Are you saying that fallen creation shows us more than what God said to us? I don't think so, which I will elaborate on below.

Why do you think that your "can" is of more consequence than the fact of creation. The image of God has not been erased from the creation, nor is the creation limited to what you see. An aberration also reveals the original. And why do you think God will prevail over the devil? Is it not in line with every law of nature?

The laws you were concerned about were given to ignorant people who had spent 400 years in slavery and were on a trek through a wilderness. They needed direct instruction. But that need was not because it was absent but because of human choices because of the fall. The information the manufacturer gives on how his creation should be maintained is always more important than information he gives to resolve problems that arise because of misuse. That is the difference between what you call general and special revelation but you seem inclined to give the preeminence to the corrective information. That goes against everything God has revealed about Himself.

A. you would not know there was a devil if not for special revelation.

B. You would not know there was a fall

C. You could only assume that God was powerful and unpredictable, that life was short, and you had a conscience which condemned you. Now that may be enough to ask for forgiveness and be saved, but I think that revelation has a much happier message than nature ever did. Nature's message at its current state at best is the above, and at worst is you die, and that is it.

D. You would have no idea of an afterlife.

E You maintain it is corrective. That is your term, and no one else. God telling us of His great love for people through the scriptures is far more than just a correction to the instruction manual.

Right here you are misrepresenting what I said. I said I had not yet read the rest of the post. That was because what I had to say could be said without reference to what was in the post. To say that I DIDN'T read it is not reflective of the truth. And I fail to see how anything could justify misrepresenting what you read.

Several times you have said we, both woobadooba and I, misrepresent you. This time I have taken a screenshot of your own words, so that it might be seen that I have NOT misrepresented you.



Here you first said you did NOT read it.

Just now you said that you didn't need to read the rest to say what you had to say. But clearly you did have to, because you admit it right there. I said the exact opposite of what you accused me of, you acknowledged it, and now conveniently accused me of making the whole thing up. Are we really misrepresenting you? Or can you not remember what you said?

By and large the substance of the Scriptures are no different from the conclusions scientists make from their study of nature. One only need to study human history to realize that scientists are not always correct in their conclusions, but they are aware of that. Later scientists are able to advance the knowledge in that particular field but the evidence was always there. We ought to know more about God than did the ancients in the same way that we know about the sciences than did the ancients. The disciples spent more than three years with Christ and in the end they were still uninformed about Him. Just read Mark 10 and you will get a good example. In John 21:23-24 we have a stark example of how the Apostles completely misrepresented something Jesus had said because they were trying to justify a held position.

I am yet to find an example of special revelation that makes sense. Could you help me fill that void in my knowledge?

Actually you read nowhere in nature of a loving Savior, which is the keynote in the scriptures.

And as to scientists being aware of their lack of full knowledge, where is that humility with you? You tell us we would all know so much more if we only used your method. In the very post where we said we didn't have a consistent way to interpret the laws, you said that you had all the answers, and we were just confused.

Finally, no, I can't help you to take the scales of doubt off of your eyes and accept the scriptures. As Jesus said, you have Moses and the prophets. If you will not listen to them, then you would not be convinced even if someone rose from the dead.

But I will point out that even here you have an inconsistency which you failed to address the first time I asked you. You say that you have seen NO special revelation that makes sense.

Why then did you say you accept the words of Christ? How would you even know there WAS a Christ? If this mass of confusion is your method, I am quite glad I don't have it.

First you say you place general revelation over special.

Then you say you don't accept Paul at face value because he saw through a glass darkly (never thinking that perhaps you do too, and yet still quoting Paul when it pleases you).

Then you say you only accept two verses in the Bible.

Then you say you accept the words of Christ.

And now you say you have NEVER seen special revelation that made sense.

I can see why you wouldn't. You can't even make sense of your own opinion.


Payattention, now I want to address another area with you. You have said that we are being uncharitable in misrepresenting you. Yet we strove with you for quite some time before becoming this direct. Why? Because we thought you might have something to share, and that behind all your claims to have all the answers you might have some evidence. But you have shown us nothing but confusion over your own view, and that you refute ALL the scriptures.

In truth your message is that YOU are the final arbiter of truth, and what is inspired. You decide what is of God and what isn't. And you enforce that by calling everyone else lacking. I frankly don't accept that. If you think I am being uncharitable, then look at our early exchanges. We were asking questions, wanting to know. I defended the right of you and everyone else to post your views. But one thing I will not defend is constantly trumpeting how you have it all together, when you can't back it up. I for one have had enough of waiting for you to show us the wisdom of your ways. You show us nothing but doubt, confusion and discouragement to others.

If you truly want to be an educator, then show us the humility that the Greatest of teachers showed. Be willing to INSPIRE people to learn rather than belittling them for having less years and wisdom than you. Am I being less than humble as well. Probably so. But I do not think that everything that is direct is wrong. And I do not think I should let the scriptures be cast out without saying something. When you came here to this board you agreed that you believed that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, according to the scritpures. Do you really? You said you never saw any special revelation that made sense. To me you have misrepresented yourself, so that you might push your own views. I don't say this so you can be removed on a technicality. Whether the mods do that is their own business. I say it because I think it is wrong, and should be exposed.

 

[payattention]

Tall73, the only reason why you keep insisting that I am the final arbiter is because you are expecting me to come to provide a final doctrine. That has never been my intention nor have I intimated such. I have no idea where you get it from. The purpose of an objective method is that anyone may use it. Somehow you want to twist my words so that I am presenting some doctrine. You continue to accuse me of things I have not said. You accuse me of rejecting Scripture. Why you insist on spreading such untruths is beyond me. If this is to be your style then I won't encourage in it.

 

[payattention]

What I have said is that special revelation is not simply to be discarded in favor of general revelation, or called into constant question for no apparent reason. If you think that God was at all behind inspiring the scriptures, then there should be some thought that they reflect at least a little what He wanted to say. I have been consistent though. I agree that there are times where there might be evidence of human reasoning. But when you say that Paul cannot be listened to on any particular point because of his statement in I corinthians 13, when we were not even addressing that passage, and then to turn around and preach Paul at us when it is convenient that is nothing but inconsistency.

Then we are discussing at cross purposes. I have never claimed that special revelation should be discarded. I refuse to make a distinction in God's revelation to man. Revelation is not a product of sin. God revealed Himself from the very beginning. The problem is that you are arguing something I am not. My position is that the Bible clearly teaches by example that all revelation of God must be interpreted with the same methods, because God is One.

You complicate matters by claiming that I said Paul cannot be listened to on any particular point. Maybe you can provide a screen shot where I said that. One does not exist. My point has always been that what we have in the Bible are human reflections on the interaction between God and his creation. As with anything man does we are sometimes correct and sometimees incorrect. Paul was not alway correct. Sometimes he was even aware of it. Other times he admitted that he was just giving his opinion. The only wise approach is to read him the way the Bereans did. I'll give you one example where he was wrong or used the wrong word, leading to a false teaching. It is clear both from John 3:16 and any summary review of nature that salvation is an act of love. Everyone who is lost deserves to be saved. Yet Paul says that we are saved by grace. We are not saved by grace. We deserved to be saved because we belonged to God and were taken away under false representations; deceived. Our opportunity to serve as ambassadors of the kingdom is an act of grace, not our salvation. Paul may have meant to refer to our service as ambassadors of Christ but he used the word saved. As a result Christians routinely present a contradictory view of salvation, declaring it to be both deserved and undeserved. But this error, or whatever you may call it, does not disqualify Paul anymore than an error in my textbook disqualfies the author as an authority in the field.

 

[payattention]

I will address separately the screenshot you produced. I remember that clearly. I don't real extra long posts because they usually address more than one point making it difficult to send off a response in quick time. However, when I was responding to your claim that I DIDN'T read your post it brought to mind a post I responded to in and in my reponse I said that even though I had not read the rest of the post I would go ahead and make a statement. This is what I was referring to. It turns out that we were referring to different posts.

While we are at it I will state my internet forum philosophy, if you can call it that.

1. I view it as conversation. I try to keep my posts short and focussed on one idea. I expect the same from posts I intend to respond to. Long posts are tedious to deal with.
2. Most times I can't tell you who I am responding to. I deal with ideas. I am not making personal addresses. Unless I intentionally direct an individual it would not be wise to take my comments personally.

 

[payattention]

do you really? What a surprise that you once again think me uneducated. Is it because I don't agree with you? You have said many times that we are all deluded, following the wrong method, in confusion.

It is your choice to take matters personally. Why should I think uneducated? I am dealing with the reality that after 2000 years we are still here, and it is clear that Christ expected to return long before this. What else can we attribute it to, and how can we characterise the refusal of our theological establishment to accept responsibility? Either God is responsible or we are. The evidence is overwhelming that he is not.

I am surprised that you would have difficulty with the word confusion. It is the same word as Babylon. Theology is in confusion else Christ would have returned already.

 

[payattention]

And as to receiving more information from creation than theologians...I think you have the equation wrong. The scriptures are not what the theologians make of them , but what God said in them. <snip> Are you saying that fallen creation shows us more than what God said to us? I don't think so, which I will elaborate on below.

My focus is on the person of the Creator. Jesus said the the essence of Creation is to know the Creator. The entire controversy surrounds the devil's efforts to misrepresent the character of the Creator. For this reason what we understand him to be is paramount. What we learn about him from nature cannot be contradicted by what we learn from His words and his acts among men. Because what we learn from nature is objective, having been discovered coincidentally, it serves as an effective check for the conclusions men may come to in their study of the scripture. Again, I will give an example. Some Scriptural passages seem to teach that sinners will burn in hell for eternity. By any definition that would be torture. It would be punishment that does not fit the crime. From a study of human nature we easily understand man at his best abhors torture. We also know that the creature can never be better than its creator. It is therefore wrong for any theologian to conclude that his review of "special" revelation makes God a torturer when man at his best would abhor torture.

 

[woobadooba]

My focus is on the person of the Creator. Jesus said the the essence of Creation is to know the Creator. The entire controversy surrounds the devil's efforts to misrepresent the character of the Creator. For this reason what we understand him to be is paramount. What we learn about him from nature cannot be contradicted by what we learn from His words and his acts among men. Because what we learn from nature is objective, having been discovered coincidentally, it serves as an effective check for the conclusions men may come to in their study of the scripture. Again, I will give an example. Some Scriptural passages seem to teach that sinners will burn in hell for eternity. By any definition that would be torture. It would be punishment that does not fit the crime. From a study of human nature we easily understand man at his best abhors torture. We also know that the creature can never be better than its creator. It is therefore wrong for any theologian to conclude that his review of "special" revelation makes God a torturer when man at his best would abhor torture.

Once again you are mising the point! Nobody is telling you that you can't discover some things about God's character through nature.

What you are being told is that you wouldn't know those things about God that are essential to our faith without special revelation. For example, you wouldn't know that Jesus died for your sins if it weren't for God's word telling you that. And you wouldn't know the severity of sin if it weren't for God's word disclosing to you what sin is.

And there are many other things that you wouldn't know just by simply trying to look at God through nature's eyes, so to speak.

 

[payattention]

You just don't get it. Take a trip over to the General Apologetics forum and explain this one to the atheists! They will eat you alive!

Been there, done that. Atheists can only eat alive those who make presentations they cannot defend rationally. I have had an easier task of convincing both an atheist and an evolutionist that a Creator exists than in getting Christians to accept the implications of the fact that in the beginning One Intelligent Being created the universe.