Judge rules against ‘intelligent design’

[vossler]

But you choose to make an idol of a fallible human interpretation of scripture.

Help me to understand this, if human interpretation of Scripture is considered idolatry then what possible good is Scripture? If we can't rely on it, through proper hermaneutics, to be the Truth, all we'd have is relativism; how can that be good?

 

[Donkeytron]

Can you say "dictatorial" boys and girls?

You don't get to teach non-science in science class. End of story.

 

[gluadys]

Help me to understand this, if human interpretation of Scripture is considered idolatry then what possible good is Scripture? If we can't rely on it, through proper hermaneutics, to be the Truth, all we'd have is relativism; how can that be good?

It is only idolatry if it one insists that their personal (or their church's) interpretation is to be identified with God's interpretation. Not everyone who holds a YEC or ID or TE view would be an idolator in this respect.

Proper hermeneutics does help us to understand scripture better and to be more confident that we understand it correctly. Just as scientific method helps us understand nature better and be more confident that we understand it correctly.

But to some extent you have just displaced the problem from one of taking the text at face value to one of identifying "proper" hermeneutics. There are some hermeneutical principles that always apply. Like checking out the various meanings of a word and determining from the context which best fits. But there are some accepted by one hermeneutical system that are not accepted by others. The historical-critical system, for example, accepts findings on dating and authorship (e.g. JEPD) that are not accepted by other systems. And I have seen sets of hermeneutical principles that include taking a passage literally unless there are clear scriptural indications otherwise. I see no basis for this principle.

And it also leads to the dilemma we have been discussing. The passage in Leviticus clearly includes bats among birds. There is no scriptural indication that this is not to be taken in a straighforward sense. So do we ignore the fact that scientifically, a bat displays the traits of a mammal, not a bird? This sort of thing calls into question the validity of a hermeneutical principle that privileges a literal reading above others. (NOTE: It does NOT call scripture into question, but the validity of this kind of interpretive rule.)

Obviously, when we cannot agree on which hermeneutical principles are valid we will also disagree on the conclusions which depend on those principles.

The question of relativism is raised by many more issues than creo-evo matters. For example, what does scripture really say on the matter of ordaining women to the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments? You have your opinion on this of course (and I am not asking what it is), but whatever opinion you hold, you are aware that other Christians disagree with you on this.

Does the fact that we have not ascertained which side scripture really supports on this issue make all of scripture worthless? Are we to reject the gospel because we cannot agree as to whether or not women are permitted to preach it?

So even without considering the relationship of scriptural to scientific truth, we do have relativism in scriptural interpretation, like it or not.

However, we also have faith that such relativism is not a property of scripture, but an expression of human ignorance on the question. Scripture is still worthwhile because we have faith that:

1. it does witness to Truth
2. that Truth is accessible to us through prayer and study
3. the core of that Truth is already known to us in the basics of the gospel
4. with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we will discover the Truth on controversial matters in due time.

It is interesting to compare this with scientific knowledge. No one claims it is complete or certain in all respects. But we accept it as valid because we have faith that:

1. nature exhibits a single, cohesive Truth
2. that Truth is accessible to us through observation and experiment
3. some of that Truth is already known to us in various natural laws and theories.
4. through continued exploration we will discover the Truth that settles current controversies in due time.

As shernren pointed out in another post, one of the disturbing theological implications of some YECist arguments is precisely that all knowledge of nature is relative, that we cannot access the Truth about nature, because nature is illusory and what we see does not necessarily relate to what is. On this basis totally opposite conclusions about nature can be equally valid as they stem from different "hermeneutics" about nature.

This is moving relativism from an artifact of incomplete knowledge to the nature of creation itself. And that, of course, has disturbing implications about the character of God. If God is the sort of being that would create an illusory universe, then one cannot rely on the scriptures which are God-given either. How do we know their message is not illusory too?

 

[gluadys]

Vossler

For a much more detailed presentation of what I have been trying to say, check out this article.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/dialogues/Faith-reason/CRS9-91VanTill.html

The key question, as Van Till points out, is "how do we know?" and this applies equally to science and to scripture.

I would be interested in your comments.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mod Hat On​

Calling someone an idolater or a hypocite because you don't like there theology is flaming:

:rules:Rule No. 1 - No "Flaming"​

1.1 You may discuss another individual's beliefs or religious organization but you will not harass, insult, belittle, threaten, defame or flame the individual (member or non-member) as this is considered personal (ad hominem) attacks in posts, PMs and any other communication within the site. This includes, but is not limited to:

a. Directly calling another member “cultist”, “heretic” or “bigot” as these are personal attacks and are not conducive to civil discussion.
b. Calling famous individuals derogatory names (unless it is a well-known nickname) as this may be considered defamation.​

1.2 You will not directly call another member or his or her religious organization a “cult”, “heretic”, “demonic” or “satanic” but you may discuss doctrines, teachings, practices or writings of other religious organizations as long as empirical evidence is provided.

1.3 You will only post negative statements about another individual’s belief or religious organization (including non-Christian religions) with objective evidence provided. Members are allowed to say “The doctrines X church is false because of Y scriptures and Z other relevant evidence”.

One unofficial warning has been issued and more will be issued if it continues. Feel free to PM me with any questions or concerns.

Mod Hat OFF​

 

[vossler]

Merry Christmas gluadys,

Thank you for your detailed response.

It is only idolatry if it one insists that their personal (or their church's) interpretation is to be identified with God's interpretation. Not everyone who holds a YEC or ID or TE view would be an idolator in this respect.

If one can’t believe, without being referred to as an idolater, that after study and prayer that ones interpretation of Scripture to be correct because there’s disagreement within the body then like I said it all comes back to relativism. What may be truth to me may not be truth to you or someone else.

Proper hermeneutics does help us to understand scripture better and to be more confident that we understand it correctly. Just as scientific method helps us understand nature better and be more confident that we understand it correctly.

But to some extent you have just displaced the problem from one of taking the text at face value to one of identifying "proper" hermeneutics. There are some hermeneutical principles that always apply. Like checking out the various meanings of a word and determining from the context which best fits. But there are some accepted by one hermeneutical system that are not accepted by others. The historical-critical system, for example, accepts findings on dating and authorship (e.g. JEPD) that are not accepted by other systems. And I have seen sets of hermeneutical principles that include taking a passage literally unless there are clear scriptural indications otherwise. I see no basis for this principle.

And it also leads to the dilemma we have been discussing. The passage in Leviticus clearly includes bats among birds. There is no scriptural indication that this is not to be taken in a straighforward sense. So do we ignore the fact that scientifically, a bat displays the traits of a mammal, not a bird? This sort of thing calls into question the validity of a hermeneutical principle that privileges a literal reading above others. (NOTE: It does NOT call scripture into question, but the validity of this kind of interpretive rule.)

Obviously, when we cannot agree on which hermeneutical principles are valid we will also disagree on the conclusions which depend on those principles.

See this is what I’m talking about. If we can’t agree on what proper hermeneutics is, then obviously we won’t be able to agree on what the Bible is actually telling us. It’s all relative to our own worldview and therefore takes the power, meaning and depth of Scripture to whatever it is you or I wish for it to say. It would take Romans 15:4 “For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope” and relegate it, at best, to something someone can personally apply to oneself, but never to society as a whole. It would take the hope we have and diminish it to what man himself knows.

No longer will Scripture produce the obedience that Deuteronomy 17:19-20 exhorts: “And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God and be careful to observe all the words of this law and these statues, that his heart may not be lifted above his brethren that he may not turn aside from the commandment to the right had or to the left, and that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children in the midst of Israel.” Ultimately Scripture is whatever we want it to be and therefore it loses its saltiness and strength.

Satan has succeeded! Scriptures relevance today is far from what it once was. Science has had a lot to do with that. Before Scripture was universally held with high regard, it was rarely challenged. Today, partially as a result of modern science, it is considered in vogue to come up with ones own interpretation of the Bible for anything even remotely controversial.

The question of relativism is raised by many more issues than creo-evo matters. For example, what does scripture really say on the matter of ordaining women to the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments? You have your opinion on this of course (and I am not asking what it is), but whatever opinion you hold, you are aware that other Christians disagree with you on this.

Does the fact that we have not ascertained which side scripture really supports on this issue make all of scripture worthless? Are we to reject the gospel because we cannot agree as to whether or not women are permitted to preach it?

So even without considering the relationship of scriptural to scientific truth, we do have relativism in scriptural interpretation, like it or not.

You’re right; creation isn’t the only issue where relativism is raised. However, I would submit it was probably the first, at least the one that had wide-spread acceptance. From there other things became relative, like the ones you mentioned along with the gay lifestyle. What was once clear to everyone has become less and less so, to the point where we are today. Does anyone think these and other issues will somehow become more clear in the future, hardly, I think the door will soon open to many other topics that once were solid and without question.

However, we also have faith that such relativism is not a property of scripture, but an expression of human ignorance on the question. Scripture is still worthwhile because we have faith that:

1. it does witness to Truth
2. that Truth is accessible to us through prayer and study
3. the core of that Truth is already known to us in the basics of the gospel

4. with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we will discover the Truth on controversial matters in due time.

1. Who’s Truth does it witness to; God’s, yours or mine? Lots of people have so-called faith; I just wonder what it’s in.
2. Obviously that faith is weakened when countless folks believe Scripture is relative.
3. The core of that that Truth may be the gospel, but I’m beginning to see chinks in that as well.
4. Not if we’re allowed to believe that whenever there is controversy Truth becomes relative.

It is interesting to compare this with scientific knowledge. No one claims it is complete or certain in all respects. But we accept it as valid because we have faith that:

1. nature exhibits a single, cohesive Truth
2. that Truth is accessible to us through observation and experiment
3. some of that Truth is already known to us in various natural laws and theories.
4. through continued exploration we will discover the Truth that settles current controversies in due time.

1. I’m not sure what that means, but O.K.
2. It would be nice if science operated only under those two principles.
3. Yes.
4. Yes, eventually we will discover the Truth, unfortunately I don’t believe it will be through exploration but only with the second coming.

This is moving relativism from an artifact of incomplete knowledge to the nature of creation itself. And that, of course, has disturbing implications about the character of God. If God is the sort of being that would create an illusory universe, then one cannot rely on the scriptures which are God-given either. How do we know their message is not illusory too?

It’s interesting how we state that if God created as He said He did it has to be an illusory universe. I don’t find it illusory at all, while you and many scientists might think this I most certainly don’t. I have no illusions about what God said He did. It is only man, through his own efforts, that any illusionary concepts are ever introduced.

Unfortunately, man can’t control his pride, he has taken the bait of Satan the same one Satan himself took, thinking he is like God; man has bought Satan’s lie.

 

[vossler]

Vossler

For a much more detailed presentation of what I have been trying to say, check out this article.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/dialogues/Faith-reason/CRS9-91VanTill.html

The key question, as Van Till points out, is "how do we know?" and this applies equally to science and to scripture.

I would be interested in your comments.

I tried to read the complete article, but being one who has never claimed to be scientifically minded, I just couldn't stay with it.

If it is required that I need to have a strong interest in science and scientific studies in order for me to understand God's Creation then I think we've gone too far. I don't believe God ever wanted His Creation to be something extremely complicated for man to 'figure out'. It seems that in order for a Christian to believe in evolution one needs to have an 'expert' show and tell them everything as opposed to just believing what God's Word clearly and emphatically tells us. Somehow that just doesn't make much sense.

As for the question "how do we know?" well, the short answer is we're not required to know the how's, where's, what's of Creation. Everything we need to know is there, everything else is gravy. I have nothing against gravy if it adds to the potatoes and doesn't take away from them.

The same is true for Scripture.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Merry Christmas gluadys,

Thank you for your detailed response.

If one can’t believe, without being referred to as an idolater, that after study and prayer that ones interpretation of Scripture to be correct because there’s disagreement within the body then like I said it all comes back to relativism. What may be truth to me may not be truth to you or someone else.

See this is what I’m talking about. If we can’t agree on what proper hermeneutics is, then obviously we won’t be able to agree on what the Bible is actually telling us. It’s all relative to our own worldview and therefore takes the power, meaning and depth of Scripture to whatever it is you or I wish for it to say.

Which is exactly what happens... 10,000 different denominations of Christianity: All of whom agree on the major points of Christianity, none of whom agree exactly on the proper hermeneutics, each one claiming to be correct.

Satan has succeeded! Scriptures relevance today is far from what it once was. Science has had a lot to do with that. Before Scripture was universally held with high regard, it was rarely challenged. Today, partially as a result of modern science, it is considered in vogue to come up with ones own interpretation of the Bible for anything even remotely controversial.

There's also been an upswing in tolerence, and a sharp drop in Crusades, Inquisitions, stonings, and burnings. One must take the bad with the good... the price of progress, I'm afraid.

You’re right; creation isn’t the only issue where relativism is raised. However, I would submit it was probably the first, at least the one that had wide-spread acceptance. From there other things became relative, like the ones you mentioned along with the gay lifestyle. What was once clear to everyone has become less and less so, to the point where we are today.

Does anyone think these and other issues will somehow become more clear in the future, hardly, I think the door will soon open to many other topics that once were solid and without question.

So people ask questions. What's so frightening about questions?

The times, they are a-changin'

Unfortunately, man can’t control his pride, he has taken the bait of Satan the same one Satan himself took, thinking he is like God; man has bought Satan’s lie.

"And your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as Gods yourselves."

Including the people who mistake their own interpretation for God's... and proclaim "Satan has won!" when that is questioned.

 

[mark kennedy]

Help me to understand this, if human interpretation of Scripture is considered idolatry then what possible good is Scripture? If we can't rely on it, through proper hermaneutics, to be the Truth, all we'd have is relativism; how can that be good?

It all depends on what you are relying on Scripture for. If someone claims to be a Christian and denies that Genesis 1 is literally true I can take that with a grain of salt. If on the other hand they deny miracles, especially the ressurection, we are not talking about a Christian in the Biblical sense but a Christian in name only.

Friday I happened upon one of those holiday documentary things you get around Christmas and Easter. They treated the birth of Christ like it was a big myth, but they called it a true myth, whatever that is. Same thing with the judgment John Jones handed down. He says that the arguments of intelligent design all illogical and fallacious but said that the court has no opinion about whether or not its true. Saying that intelligent design and creationism are not science is another way of saying it is false. Judge Jones also erroneously says that intelligent design does not represent the historical perspective of science. This is patently false, intelligent design was the prevailing view of science up untill Darwin.

"For millennia, philosophers have argued that the complexity of nature indicates the existence of a purposeful natural or supernatural designer/creator. The first recorded arguments for a natural designer come from Greek philosophy. The philosophical concept of the "Logos" is typically credited to Heraclitus (c. 535–c.475 BCE), a Pre-Socratic philosopher, and is briefly explained in his extant fragments.[8] Plato (c. 427–c. 347 BCE) posited a natural "demiurge" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the formator of the cosmos in his work Timaeus. Aristotle (c. 384–322 BCE) also developed the idea of a natural formator of the cosmos, often referred to as the "Prime Mover" in his work Metaphysics. In his de Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods) Cicero (c. 106–c. 43 BCE) stated, "The divine power is to be found in a principle of reason which pervades the whole of nature."​

Intelligent Design

Notice this is the work of philosophers, ancient Greeks built the foundations of modern science without experimentation. Science for them was not derived from inductive factoids, they were deduced from philosophical premises. Sir Issac Newton was the man most responsible for the development of what has come to be modern science. His Principia is considered one of the greatest scientific treatises in human history.

"Here is what he wrote in the Principia, in 1687:

I do not think it explicable by mere natural causes but am forced to ascribe it to ye counsel and contrivance of a voluntary agent.' A month later he wrote to Bentley again: 'Gravity may put ye planets into motion but without ye divine power it could never put them into such a Circulating motion as they have about ye Sun, and therefore, for this as well as other reasons, I am compelled to ascribe ye frame of this Systeme to an intelligent Agent.' If, for example, the earth revolved on its axis at only one hundred miles per hour instead of one thousand miles per hour, night would ten times longer and the world would be too cold to sustain life; during the long day, the heat would shrivel all the vegetation. The Being which had contrived all this so perfectly had to be a supremely intelligent Mechanick."​

http://www.lehigh.edu/~amsp/2005/05/isaac-newton-and-intelligent-design.html

The greatest scientific mind of the Scientific Revolution and we are supposed to think this psuedo-science, nonesense. This isn't arguements from science this is scientific positivism pure and simple.

"

Throughout the Origin of Species, Darwin repeatedly argues against the scientific status of the received “theory of Creation.” He often faults his creationist rivals not just for their inability to devise explanations for certain biological data, but for their inability to offer scientific explanations at all. Indeed, some of Darwin's arguments for descent with modification depended, not on newly discovered facts unknown to the special creationists, but upon facts such as fossil progression, homology and biogeographical distribution that had neither stymied nor puzzled many creationists, but which, in Darwin's view, creationists could not explain in a properly scientific way.2 What Darwin questioned in his attack against creationism was not just, to put the issue in modern terms, the “empirical adequacy” of then current creationist theories, but rather the methodological (and therefore scientific) legitimacy of the creationist program itself. Thus, Darwin would emphatically dismiss the creationist account of homology, for example, by saying “but that is not a scientific explanation.”3

"Underlying Darwin's repudiation of creationist legitimacy lay an entirely different conception of science than had prevailed among earlier naturalists. Darwin's attacks on his creationist and idealist opponents in part expressed and in part established an emerging positivistic “episteme” in which the mere mention of unverifiable “acts of Divine will” or “the plan of creation” would increasingly serve to disqualify theories from consideration as science qua science. This decoupling of theology from science and the redefinition of science that underlay it was justified less by argument than by an implicit assumption about the characteristic features of all scientific theories—features that presumably could distinguish theories of a properly scientific (that is, positivistic) bent from those tied to unwelcome metaphysical or theological moorings. Thus, both in the Origin and in subsequent letters one finds Darwin invoking a number of ideas about what constitutes a properly scientific explanation in order to characterize creationist theories as inherently “unscientific.” For Darwin the in principle illegitimacy of creationism was demonstrated by perceived deficiencies in its method of inquiry such as its failure to explain by reference to natural law, and its postulation of unobservable causes and explanatory entities such as mind, purpose or “the plan of creation.”​

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1780

To understand what is going on here you don't listen to the scientists, this is an ongoing debate between philosophers. It has absolutly nothing to do with actaul science whatsoever.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[gluadys]

Merry Christmas gluadys,

Thank you for your detailed response.

You are welcome. I also appreciate your thoughtful responses.

If one can’t believe, without being referred to as an idolater, that after study and prayer that ones interpretation of Scripture to be correct because there’s disagreement within the body then like I said it all comes back to relativism. What may be truth to me may not be truth to you or someone else.

Well, we can't help what other people call us even when it is unjustified. There is nothing idolatrous about believing one's own interpretation is true---as long as one recognizes that it might not be. And as long as there are other sincere Christians who hold to other views, we have to recognize that however strongly persuaded we are of our own belief, we may be wrong.

That doesn't mean abandoning what we think is true. One of the meanings of faith is commitment to the truth as we believe it to be. Here Van Till makes a distinction that it important:

Perhaps my complaint is primarily with Plantinga's use of the term faith. In most instances in this paper the term does not refer to one's personal commitment to act in the warranted confidence that the object of one's faith is trustworthy (e.g., to have faith that God will provide lovingly for our needs); rather, Plantinga employs the term principally as an abbreviated version of "a deliverance of the faith."​

The part I bolded is what I understand biblical faith to be in its primary sense. It includes the belief that God is, the belief that God is trustworthy, and the commitment to act on that belief. It does not include belief in a variety of propositional statements.

What Van Till calls "a deliverance of the faith." is assent to propositional statements, like those of the creed.

Both have their place in Christian faith, but while the first is essential, and some propositions (Jesus is the incarnation of God the Son who died for our sins and was resurrected as Lord and Saviour) are essential, other propositions (the children of professing believers may be baptized) are controversial. Holding to your own convictions on a controversial matter is perfectly ok. Acting on your convictions is ok. But calling someone an idolator because they hold a different position is not. Because, as long as sincere Christians, well-versed in scripture, cannot agree on these matters, we cannot smugly assume that we are in the right.

See this is what I’m talking about. If we can’t agree on what proper hermeneutics is, then obviously we won’t be able to agree on what the Bible is actually telling us.

Exactly. I am glad we see eye to eye on this. That is why the Reformers called on the Church of their day to stop creating dogmas (such as those related to Mary) which were not based on scripture. Their watchword was "unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, charity in all."

And even though there are some things about which there is controversy, that does not apply to all things. When it comes to the essentials of the Christian faith, there is a general consensus that the basics of the Nicene creed are correct. Groups which disagree with its propositions are small, fringe, sectarian groups, not representative of the overwhelming majority of Christians. So Christians already have agreed on the most important things the bible tells us. We should not let our differences on non-essentials take our attention from the much larger body of Christian belief we agree on.

In short, relativism is not nearly as scary as you make it out to be--unless you look only at the disagreements and forget to what extent we are already agreed.

It’s all relative to our own worldview and therefore takes the power, meaning and depth of Scripture to whatever it is you or I wish for it to say. It would take Romans 15:4 “For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope” and relegate it, at best, to something someone can personally apply to oneself, but never to society as a whole. It would take the hope we have and diminish it to what man himself knows.

I really don't see how you come to this conclusion. Nor is it borne out by my experience. I am not seeing any connect between the scripture you quote and what you say about it. Are you perhaps suggesting that "wahtever things were written before" could not be something we can learn from unless they are historical events? And therefore could not be the basis of our hope?

I am interested too that you want something more than a personal application. You want a hope for society as a whole. I have found very few non-liberal Christians who have a burden for society; I am often frustrated by an emphasis on the individual when the bible focuses much more strongly on the nation--whether OT Israel, or NT Church. I have always been much more attracted to working out the social applications of biblical teaching, and that, in fact, is how I currently make my living.

No longer will Scripture produce the obedience that Deuteronomy 17:19-20 exhorts: “And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God and be careful to observe all the words of this law and these statues, that his heart may not be lifted above his brethren that he may not turn aside from the commandment to the right had or to the left, and that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children in the midst of Israel.”

Ditto to the above. This is a great passage of scripture addressed to kings (and by implication to non-monarchical rulers as well). But I don't see how it illustrates your train of thought.

Ultimately Scripture is whatever we want it to be and therefore it loses its saltiness and strength.

No,no,no,no no. Scripture is never whatever we want it to be, just as nature is never whatever we want it to be. This again is the problem of confusing our own interpretations with the substance we are interpreting.

In science, when we mistake our interpretation for the reality of nature, the feedback from nature eventually shows that the intepretation is wrong. As the inconsistencies between observed nature and Newton's physics showed that Newton's physics, although very accurate, was not accurate enough.

Nature never changed from what it really was to agree with Newton's world view. And it hasn't changed from what it really is to agree with Einstein's world view is. We know that Einstein's view of nature (in respect of gravity) is more accurate than Newton's because it fits better with the observed reality of natural events. But it is not perfect either, so we also know that this too is an interpretation. Not quite the real thing.

The same goes for scripture. The message of scripture was set when the author wrote it. We may have different interpretations of it, but that doesn't mean we can just say "To each his own--let it mean whatever you think it means." No, the point of hermeneutics is to find out, as close as we can, what the real meaning is. And in order to do that, we have to pay attention to the feedback. Some people, for example, read what Gen. 1 says about God giving humanity dominion over the rest of nature to mean we can act in any way we like toward the rest of nature with no accountability for our actions. But the feedback from such notions is that it destroys resources essential not only to the survival of spotted owls or polar bears, but to our own survival as well. Anything we do to the earth, we do to ourselves. So, the feedback tells us that this cannot be the correct interpretation of what 'dominion' over nature means.

So you see, the fact that people have different interpretations of scripture doesn't mean we need to settle for ignorance on the matter. It means we need to apply more study to it, until we get a convergence of opinion--as we already have on the essentials of the faith.

1. Who’s Truth does it witness to; God’s, yours or mine?

God's

2. Obviously that faith is weakened when countless folks believe Scripture is relative.

I take it you are speaking of yourself. I don't find that to be the case.

3. The core of that that Truth may be the gospel, but I’m beginning to see chinks in that as well.

You are beginning to doubt the gospel? Or do I misunderstand you?

4. Not if we’re allowed to believe that whenever there is controversy Truth becomes relative.

No, controversy does not make the Truth relative. It only means we don't have a good grasp on the Truth yet. We are still the blind men who each know a piece of the elephant, but don't know the elephant as a whole yet.

1. I’m not sure what that means, but O.K.

It means that all the parts of nature and all its processes fit together into a unified whole, so that all the truths of nature agree with each other.

2. It would be nice if science operated only under those two principles.

Basically it does. Human error can creep in from time to time to muddy the waters. And human dishonesty even. But sooner or later, observations by other scientists tend to weed out mistakes and frauds.

3. Yes.

Good. This may be a more important matter than you recognize yet. You are agreeing that God made the universe open to our minds, and that sound scientific knowledge about nature is not an illusion.

4. Yes, eventually we will discover the Truth, unfortunately I don’t believe it will be through exploration but only with the second coming.

You may be right, but that's no reason not to continue the exploration. It may not be your calling, but as long as there are people who want to know what makes the universe tick, the exploration will continue.

[quoteIt’s interesting how we state that if God created as He said He did it has to be an illusory universe.[/quote]

Well when you say that we don't know what we do know (about fossils, the age of the earth, the distance of stars, etc.) you are saying this knowledge and the evidence which provided this knowledge is an illusion. When you say a global flood occurred when observation of nature shows that it did not, you are saying that what we see is an illusion.

 

[gluadys]

I tried to read the complete article, but being one who has never claimed to be scientifically minded, I just couldn't stay with it.

Well, it is theology, not science, but it is not geared to a beginner in theology either.

If it is required that I need to have a strong interest in science and scientific studies in order for me to understand God's Creation then I think we've gone too far.

You may be confounding two different concepts. To understand creation, of course, you have to study it, and that means studying science. However, to understand that God created nature, does not require scientific study. It only requries appreciation of creation, and appreciation of the wisdom and power of God. No scientific study required. Although one's appreciation of creation, and of God's wisdom and power is usually enhanced by the study of creation, study is not an essential pre-requisite.

don't believe God ever wanted His Creation to be something extremely complicated for man to 'figure out'.

Since, as IDers keep reminding us, nature is very complicated, and many people cite its complexity as a reason to doubt evolution, it would seem your belief in this instance is mistaken.

It seems that in order for a Christian to believe in evolution one needs to have an 'expert' show and tell them everything as opposed to just believing what God's Word clearly and emphatically tells us.

Well, it is not an either-or proposition. It is more a matter of evolution filling out part of the story of creation that scripture doesn't tell us. You don't have to reject what scripture tells us in order to believe what science tells us.

As for the question "how do we know?" well, the short answer is we're not required to know the how's, where's, what's of Creation. Everything we need to know is there, everything else is gravy. I have nothing against gravy if it adds to the potatoes and doesn't take away from them.

The same is true for Scripture.

So think of scientific knowledge as the gravy.

 

[gluadys]

Saying that intelligent design and creationism are not science is another way of saying it is false.

Are you suggesting that only scientific fact is true? I'm surprised.

 

[mark kennedy]

Are you suggesting that only scientific fact is true? I'm surprised.

No actually I am saying that a scientific fact is only true in a certain context. The perception is that if intelligent design and creationism are not scientific then they are not true. That would seem to be the logic and it doesn't hold water. Clearly God is not testable and any theological view that does not accept the aseity (utter independance) of God their not following Biblical theism. I frankly don't care much about the primordial past, it is redemptive history that fascinates me.

If you reject young earth creationism I don't think I would disqualify you as an unbeliever. If you want to take parts of the Bible figurativly I am equally unconcerned about your core convictions. The miracles of the New Testament are nonnegotiable however and my question is where do we draw the line for naturalistic explanations.

This is Christmas, where Christians remember the birth of the Son of God. I don't see how any Christian could embrace the Gospel and deny the miracle of Christ's birth. I find his entrance into humanity to be supremely supernatural and miracles are demonstrated throughout his ministry. One of the key points of Christian Apologetics is that Jesus was and is, God in human flesh. If that is not supremely supernatural then I must confess I don't know what would be.

A very Merry Christmas to you gluadys. God bless you and keep you and cause His face to shine upon you as we celebrate God's unspeakable gift.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[The Lady Kate]

No actually I am saying that a scientific fact is only true in a certain context. The perception is that if intelligent design and creationism are not scientific then they are not true. That would seem to be the logic and it doesn't hold water.

Seem to be the logic, but it's not. The issue was whether Creationism and ID should be taught in a science class as science. The judge said no.... the right call, IMO.

 

[vossler]

Well, we can't help what other people call us even when it is unjustified. There is nothing idolatrous about believing one's own interpretation is true---as long as one recognizes that it might not be. And as long as there are other sincere Christians who hold to other views, we have to recognize that however strongly persuaded we are of our own belief, we may be wrong.

It’s good to see that you feel this way. I wasn’t really sure, hence my initial question.

That doesn't mean abandoning what we think is true. One of the meanings of faith is commitment to the truth as we believe it to be. Here Van Till makes a distinction that it important:

Perhaps my complaint is primarily with Plantinga's use of the term faith. In most instances in this paper the term does not refer to one's personal commitment to act in the warranted confidence that the object of one's faith is trustworthy (e.g., to have faith that God will provide lovingly for our needs); rather, Plantinga employs the term principally as an abbreviated version of "a deliverance of the faith."

The part I bolded is what I understand biblical faith to be in its primary sense. It includes the belief that God is, the belief that God is trustworthy, and the commitment to act on that belief. It does not include belief in a variety of propositional statements.

What Van Till calls "a deliverance of the faith." is assent to propositional statements, like those of the creed.

Both have their place in Christian faith, but while the first is essential, and some propositions (Jesus is the incarnation of God the Son who died for our sins and was resurrected as Lord and Saviour) are essential, other propositions (the children of professing believers may be baptized) are controversial. Holding to your own convictions on a controversial matter is perfectly ok. Acting on your convictions is ok. But calling someone an idolator because they hold a different position is not. Because, as long as sincere Christians, well-versed in scripture, cannot agree on these matters, we cannot smugly assume that we are in the right.

I did understand this part of the link you provided and don’t disagree with what is stated. Again we agree!

Exactly. I am glad we see eye to eye on this. That is why the Reformers called on the Church of their day to stop creating dogmas (such as those related to Mary) which were not based on scripture. Their watchword was "unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, charity in all."

And even though there are some things about which there is controversy, that does not apply to all things. When it comes to the essentials of the Christian faith, there is a general consensus that the basics of the Nicene creed are correct. Groups which disagree with its propositions are small, fringe, sectarian groups, not representative of the overwhelming majority of Christians. So Christians already have agreed on the most important things the bible tells us. We should not let our differences on non-essentials take our attention from the much larger body of Christian belief we agree on.

On the surface this is true, but when one looks more closely you’ll find much disagreement even on the essentials. But since this isn’t the topic of this thread I’ll leave that for another time.

In short, relativism is not nearly as scary as you make it out to be--unless you look only at the disagreements and forget to what extent we are already agreed.

I believe it’s even scarier than I actually see it, I can’t see the full implications of it so therefore I’m not likely to grasp the full degree of its tentacles. Once again, this too is probably outside the scope of this topic.

I really don't see how you come to this conclusion. Nor is it borne out by my experience. I am not seeing any connect between the scripture you quote and what you say about it. Are you perhaps suggesting that "wahtever things were written before" could not be something we can learn from unless they are historical events? And therefore could not be the basis of our hope?

If what was written was written for our learning but that which is written is freely interpreted as one sees it then what hope is there for the reader? I see this borne out all the time, when Scripture is quoted they then freely put their own interpretation upon it so it tickles their ear or more importantly aligns with their world-view.

I am interested too that you want something more than a personal application. You want a hope for society as a whole. I have found very few non-liberal Christians who have a burden for society; I am often frustrated by an emphasis on the individual when the bible focuses much more strongly on the nation--whether OT Israel, or NT Church. I have always been much more attracted to working out the social applications of biblical teaching, and that, in fact, is how I currently make my living.

Again we agree, although I would say that most of the Christians I know would feel the same as I do. We have a burden for society and if we don’t then surely there is something wrong with our theology.

Ditto to the above. This is a great passage of scripture addressed to kings (and by implication to non-monarchical rulers as well). But I don't see how it illustrates your train of thought.

How can one obey Scripture when there is no uniformity as to what it says?

No,no,no,no no. Scripture is never whatever we want it to be, just as nature is never whatever we want it to be. This again is the problem of confusing our own interpretations with the substance we are interpreting.

You may feel that way, but it doesn’t take much effort to see this to be unfortunately true. Just stick around CF for any length of time and you’ll know it to be true.

In science, when we mistake our interpretation for the reality of nature, the feedback from nature eventually shows that the intepretation is wrong. As the inconsistencies between observed nature and

Newton's physics showed that Newton's physics, although very accurate, was not accurate enough.

Nature never changed from what it really was to agree with Newton's world view. And it hasn't changed from what it really is to agree with Einstein's world view is. We know that Einstein's view of nature (in respect of gravity) is more accurate than Newton's because it fits better with the observed reality of natural events. But it is not perfect either, so we also know that this too is an interpretation. Not quite the real thing.

The same goes for scripture. The message of scripture was set when the author wrote it. We may have different interpretations of it, but that doesn't mean we can just say "To each his own--let it mean whatever you think it means." No, the point of hermeneutics is to find out, as close as we can, what the real meaning is. And in order to do that, we have to pay attention to the feedback. Some people, for example, read what Gen. 1 says about God giving humanity dominion over the rest of nature to mean we can act in any way we like toward the rest of nature with no accountability for our actions. But the feedback from such notions is that it destroys resources essential not only to the survival of spotted owls or polar bears, but to our own survival as well. Anything we do to the earth, we do to ourselves. So, the feedback tells us that this cannot be the correct interpretation of what 'dominion' over nature means.

So you see, the fact that people have different interpretations of scripture doesn't mean we need to settle for ignorance on the matter. It means we need to apply more study to it, until we get a convergence of opinion--as we already have on the essentials of the faith.

Not much to discuss here, for the most part I agree. Yet, it doesn’t change the fact that we’re more divided today as to what Scripture says than ever before. So Truth has, many times, taken a back seat to opinion or feelings.

God's

That’s good!

You are beginning to doubt the gospel? Or do I misunderstand you?

No, but there are many who are.

No, controversy does not make the Truth relative. It only means we don't have a good grasp on the Truth yet. We are still the blind men who each know a piece of the elephant, but don't know the elephant as a whole yet.

That’s right controversy doesn’t make the Truth relative, the problem is very few, who call themselves, Christians believe that.

You may be right, but that's no reason not to continue the exploration. It may not be your calling, but as long as there are people who want to know what makes the universe tick, the exploration will continue.

I have nothing against the exploration. My only dispute comes when the exploration results in a change of the interpretation of Scripture.

Well when you say that we don't know what we do know (about fossils, the age of the earth, the distance of stars, etc.) you are saying this knowledge and the evidence which provided this knowledge is an illusion. When you say a global flood occurred when observation of nature shows that it did not, you are saying that what we see is an illusion.

I don’t say a global flood occurred, the Bible does, regardless of what science tells me. It’s never an illusion to me if God said it.

Well, it is theology, not science, but it is not geared to a beginner in theology either.

O.K. you’re somewhat right; it was science disguised as theology. To me any article that discusses a theological topic to the length that this did and rarely if ever mentions biblical verses, is a pretty weak, theologically speaking, article.

You may be confounding two different concepts. To understand creation, of course, you have to study it, and that means studying science. However, to understand that God created nature, does not require scientific study. It only requries appreciation of creation, and appreciation of the wisdom and power of God. No scientific study required. Although one's appreciation of creation, and of God's wisdom and power is usually enhanced by the study of creation, study is not an essential pre-requisite.

It is a pre-requisite if one is to in any way believe evolution. If God wanted us to believe evolution he would have left us Scriptural proof of it, or at the very least some instructions.

Since, as IDers keep reminding us, nature is very complicated, and many people cite its complexity as a reason to doubt evolution, it would seem your belief in this instance is mistaken.

Personally I really don’t know what IDers truly believe or their arguments for their case. As I’ve said, I’m no scientist or a wanna-be, but it would appear that they must have some strong points in order to get so many people in such an uproar about it. The way I see it if their case is as weak as everyone makes it out to be they’ll fall flat on their faces and be laughed out of any classroom.

Well, it is not an either-or proposition. It is more a matter of evolution filling out part of the story of creation that scripture doesn't tell us. You don't have to reject what scripture tells us in order to believe what science tells us.

Yes you do when Scripture plainly and succinctly speaks.

So think of scientific knowledge as the gravy.

Pretty much, it certainly isn’t foundational.

 

[Critias]

There is nothing idolatrous about believing one's own interpretation is true---as long as one recognizes that it might not be.

So, would it be idolatrous for me or another to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, True God from True God, True light from True light, God Himself, and believe that we are not wrong? After all, it is my interpretation of the Bible to make such a statement and not believe that I am wrong.

And was Peter and Paul also idolaters because of their interpretation of what Jesus said and the fact that they knew they weren't wrong in understanding Christ and who He is?

 

[gluadys]

No actually I am saying that a scientific fact is only true in a certain context. The perception is that if intelligent design and creationism are not scientific then they are not true. That would seem to be the logic and it doesn't hold water.

Incorrect perceptions are incorrect perceptions. We all need to be on the alert to correct them. The judge said quite specifically that he was making no comment on the truth of ID/creationism, only on their scientific validity.

I would disagree that a scientific fact is true only in a certain context. A fact is a fact no matter what the context. It is perception that changes, not the facts. And in science, it is facts that change perceptions.

Clearly God is not testable and any theological view that does not accept the aseity (utter independance) of God their not following Biblical theism. I frankly don't care much about the primordial past, it is redemptive history that fascinates me.

Amen! I used to be indifferent to science, but when I had to make a choice it was biology I found most interesting. I still see nothing interesting about chemistry, but my son finds it intruiging. I find theology more interesting than science, but I feel no need to chose between them.

If you reject young earth creationism I don't think I would disqualify you as an unbeliever. If you want to take parts of the Bible figurativly I am equally unconcerned about your core convictions. The miracles of the New Testament are nonnegotiable however and my question is where do we draw the line for naturalistic explanations.

Agreed. As for where we draw the line--we draw it wherever God draws it. Whenever we discover where that is.

This is Christmas, where Christians remember the birth of the Son of God. I don't see how any Christian could embrace the Gospel and deny the miracle of Christ's birth. I find his entrance into humanity to be supremely supernatural and miracles are demonstrated throughout his ministry. One of the key points of Christian Apologetics is that Jesus was and is, God in human flesh. If that is not supremely supernatural then I must confess I don't know what would be.

A very Merry Christmas to you gluadys. God bless you and keep you and cause His face to shine upon you as we celebrate God's unspeakable gift.

Grace and peace,
Mark

And also to you and yours.

 

[gluadys]

So, would it be idolatrous for me or another to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, True God from True God, True light from True light, God Himself, and believe that we are not wrong? After all, it is my interpretation of the Bible to make such a statement and not believe that I am wrong.

How you can turn things inside out so frequently I don't know. Is this not a core belief of Christianity? Is there a substantial number of Christians (I am not counting sects like Jehovah's Witnesses) who dispute this? What would the basis be for any Christian calling another an idolator over what is agreed Christian belief?

Now, from a Muslim perspective, yes this is idolatry. So you and I are both idolators according to Islam. But that perspective is not based on an interpretation of the Bible, but on the dictum of the Qur'an which says "Allah has no sons."

 

[Critias]

Wasn't it you who said this:

There is nothing idolatrous about believing one's own interpretation is true---as long as one recognizes that it might not be.

Isn't the belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and God Himself an interpretation of what the Bible says? You said there is nothing idolatrous about our interpretion as long as we recognize we can be wrong. It follows from your statement that if we believe we aren't wrong about our interpretation, then we are idolaters. Maybe you might want to rephrase your statement because you have made it conditional on the acceptance that we can be wrong.

It is a common TE assertion that YECs are idolaters because we believe that we aren't wrong that God created in six days and rested on the seventh. In the same way we believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and God Himself. Therefore, by the same TE logic, we are idolaters because we believe we aren't wrong about who Jesus Christ is.

 

[gluadys]

Wasn't it you who said this:

There is nothing idolatrous about believing one's own interpretation is true---as long as one recognizes that it might not be.

Isn't the belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and God Himself an interpretation of what the Bible says? You said there is nothing idolatrous about our interpretion as long as we recognize we can be wrong. It follows from your statement that if we believe we aren't wrong about our interpretation, then we are idolaters. Maybe you might want to rephrase your statement because you have made it conditional on the acceptance that we can be wrong.

It is a common TE assertion that YECs are idolaters because we believe that we aren't wrong that God created in six days and rested on the seventh. In the same way we believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and God Himself. Therefore, by the same TE logic, we are idolaters because we believe we aren't wrong about who Jesus Christ is.

I wonder if even you noticed the change I bolded. Of course, none of us believes we are wrong. But, yes, the nature of faith is such that we can be wrong. So for you to call me (as you did) an idolator on the basis that you cannot be wrong in your interpretation of scripture indicates that you have put your interpretation of scripture above the truth of scripture, whatever it is. Believing that your interpretation of scripture is correct is not a problem. Believing that it cannot be wrong is.

As to the incarnation, resurrection, divinity of Christ, that is not idolatry from any Christian perspective. But, as I mentioned, it is from the viewpoint of Islam. And also Judaism. Atheists don't believe in God at all, so they don't accept these beliefs about Jesus. And to Buddhists, beliefs about God are irrelevant.

Do we know which of these beliefs are right and which are wrong?

No we do not. We know what we believe, but we do not know that what we believe is right is right. As far as we know the most fundamental core of Christianity is based on false belief.

That is always the risk on which faith rests: that we could be committing ourselves to something/someone which is fictitious. After all, if we had objective assurance that we were right, we would have no need for faith.

Finally, I suggest you not pursue this line any further, as it is likely to lead you into more flaming. If you must respond, pm me.