The Gospel and Creationism

[mark kennedy]

Recently I was asked why I am not as critical of Creationist theology as I am of Theistic Evolution. I was puzzled by this since my main point focused on literal historical facts presented in the gospel. I want to hear from creationists here but TEs are certainly welcome to share their thoughts.

What is your view of the role of miracles in redemptive history? What would happen if the historical aspect was removed from key events?

Here I am thinking about the incarnation, resurrection, ascension and miracles of Christ and the Apostles. Of course there are others, particularly Moses and Joshua as well as Elijah and Elisha. Just tell me what the role of miracles are in your theology and how it relates to the discussion of origins.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[notto]

Recently I was asked why I am not as critical of Creationist theology as I am of Theistic Evolution. I was puzzled by this since my main point focused on literal historical facts presented in the gospel.

Actually, I know that I specifically asked why you were so critical of Theistic Evolution yet are not critical of Old Earth Creationist and ID proponents such as Dembski who do not see Genesis as literal historical fact.

I wondered why they are not singled out and why you seem to only focus on the differences between YEC and TE while ignoring that the same problems you have with TE should be directed at those who accept OEC and ID because theologically they are in many ways more similar to TE than to the views of a YEC literalist.

Do you feel that William Dembski's viewpoint on Genesis is as incorrect and jepordizing to the faith as those of theistic evolutionists? Why or why not?

 

[vossler]

What is your view of the role of miracles in redemptive history? What would happen if the historical aspect was removed from key events?

For me not only would it change how I view the given text, but invariably it would change how I view the entire Bible. This would give license to anyone stating all elements of biblical truth are open and subject to personal scrutiny because nothing can be taken at face value. In some sense that's exactly what's happening in our world today. So, in short, it would have a profound effect on me.

Here I am thinking about the incarnation, resurrection, ascension and miracles of Christ and the Apostles. Of course there are others, particularly Moses and Joshua as well as Elijah and Elisha. Just tell me what the role of miracles are in your theology and how it relates to the discussion of origins.

Then if those things are called into question as to their factual accuracy, well, all of them are in a sense foundational to my faith. Faith was the lynch pin to many of the miracles in the Bible. If we take the authenticity of the event and put it into question then what's next?

 

[DailyBlessings]

The only way miracles really relate to my "TE" outlook is the underlying theological standpoint that a thing does not have to be "magical" to be an act of God, since the Universe itself and everything therein is His creation. Because I maintain that the miracles and their retelling could very well have natural causes and not lose any of their meaning. And yes, I think that everything can and should be questioned- if it is true then the answer will be yes. We owe it to our faith to bring it into maturity when the time comes.

 

[Willtor]

No doubt, you've read my interpretation of Genesis (I use the term, "my," loosely). It hinges upon a literal Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection. Actually, for those who think otherwise on these doctrines, I wouldn't mind reading your interpretations of the Gospels and Genesis.

However, grace, in the orthodox understanding, is the compelling part of the gospel, to me. This (again, in the orthodox understanding) is predicated upon a literal Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection. Costly grace is no longer costly if it didn't cost the life of God's Son, and it is hardly a compelling call to the Commandment of God.

 

[mark kennedy]

Actually, I know that I specifically asked why you were so critical of Theistic Evolution yet are not critical of Old Earth Creationist and ID proponents such as Dembski who do not see Genesis as literal historical fact.

I appreciate William Dembski's skepticism of Darwinism but I honestly have no clue about his theology. I don't like the theology of some of the TEs I have encountered mainly because I don't see one. When we are talking about origins I think things are either intelligently designed or they are not. It is the ID proponents that has merely suggested that life might be the result of an idea. This radical idea was actually the prevailing view for 2,500 years. There is nothing new under the sun and ID is no exception.

I wondered why they are not singled out and why you seem to only focus on the differences between YEC and TE while ignoring that the same problems you have with TE should be directed at those who accept OEC and ID because theologically they are in many ways more similar to TE than to the views of a YEC literalist.

To be honest, most IDs are not professing Christians, that is why. I don't really know if IDs believe in a literal resurrection but they don't say anything about that. When I am confronted with TE's who claim to be Christians I focus on the gospel.

Do you feel that William Dembski's viewpoint on Genesis is as incorrect and jepordizing to the faith as those of theistic evolutionists? Why or why not?

I don't care what he thinks about whether or not Genesis is literal. What I would like to know is whether or not the New Testament can be taken literally.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Willtor]

C.S. Lewis treats Genesis as a myth. That's not to say that you necessarily agree with him. But he does treat Christ as a literal, historical figure who bodily rose from the dead. If I recall, he has a discourse in one of his books (and maybe another C.S. Lewis buff knows what I'm talking about and can make a specific citation) in which he talks about Evolution in a figurative sense. This is not, of course, to indicate that he was an Evolutionist, but that he was really interested in a "Mere Christianity" in which Christians were not divided by subordinate doctrines. He really didn't seem to take any strong stance on the particulars of origins, except as they applied to the Gospel. This is, of course, the same as the Neo-Orthodoxy, in my reading.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

C.S. Lewis treats Genesis as a myth. That's not to say that you necessarily agree with him. But he does treat Christ as a literal, historical figure who bodily rose from the dead. If I recall, he has a discourse in one of his books (and maybe another C.S. Lewis buff knows what I'm talking about and can make a specific citation) in which he talks about Evolution in a figurative sense. This is not, of course, to indicate that he was an Evolutionist, but that he was really interested in a "Mere Christianity" in which Christians were not divided by subordinate doctrines. He really didn't seem to take any strong stance on the particulars of origins, except as they applied to the Gospel. This is, of course, the same as the Neo-Orthodoxy, in my reading.

To me the most compelling verse of scripture is: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God."

Many meanings here. Because man can live by physical bread alone, Jesus meant something else. Here's how I would paraphrase it:

"Man cannot fully prosper spiritually by focusing on Christ and the miracle of salvation alone, but by all of the written words of God, as they flow in an orderly process, and impart complete understanding of God's will and purpose."

By doing this one can eventually separate fact from metaphor.

 

[gluadys]

What is your view of the role of miracles in redemptive history? What would happen if the historical aspect was removed from key events?

Here I am thinking about the incarnation, resurrection, ascension and miracles of Christ and the Apostles. Of course there are others, particularly Moses and Joshua as well as Elijah and Elisha. Just tell me what the role of miracles are in your theology and how it relates to the discussion of origins.

Grace and peace,
Mark

The essence of miracle is to draw attention to the presence and power of God.

A miracle is a sign of God's action.

That sign need not involve any bending or distortion of natural processes. A perfectly natural event can be a miracle if it brings us into the presence of God, and draws our attention to God.

For example, the manna God provided in the wilderness may have been some natural food that the Israelites had not been familiar with before. The quails were certainly natural and may have arrived by natural migration. But for the Israelites in that time and place, they were signs of God's care and power. Hence they were miracles.

Whether a miracle is natural or super-natural is not the point. It may be that "super-natural" means nothing more than "we don't understand how this happened". Maybe God never bends natural law, but is just using nature in ways we can't yet explain.

Or maybe, sometimes, God suspends natural doings.

I think it is pointless to try and determine whether or not natural process was suspended, because that is not what makes an event a miracle.

What makes an event a miracle is that it powerfully demonstrates the presence of God. On that basis I certainly accept that the incarnation, resurrection, ascension and many other events in the bible are miraculous events which actually occurred.

 

[artybloke]

Define literally.

Otherwise what gluadys said.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I agree fully. Well said Gluadys!

 

[mark kennedy]

The essence of miracle is to draw attention to the presence and power of God.

A miracle is a sign of God's action.

That sign need not involve any bending or distortion of natural processes. A perfectly natural event can be a miracle if it brings us into the presence of God, and draws our attention to God.

The New Testament shows a lot of events that can only be described as miracles. Currently we are not living in some kind of an age of miracles but redemptive history testifies to times when people were. Not all of the miracles of the Old Testament need to be taken literally. Joshua describes the sun stopping in the sky, I never thought it unreasonable to conclude that God simply prolonged the light.

Genesis is marked by historical accounts aka narratives that don't suggest any kind of allegory. Genesis presents creation by divine fiat, ex nihilo 'out of nothing'. The fall of man is directly tied to the sin of Adam both in Genesis and key places in the New Testament ( Luke 3:38; Romans 5:12-21)

"For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:17)

There is also the universal flood and the scattering of nations. These all have implications in later judgements and events. The gospel is linked to the first man 'Adam' as the reason death prevailed up until the time of Christ. The New Testament could have simply emphasised your personal responsibility, and does, but also emphasised an historical person Adam.

For example, the manna God provided in the wilderness may have been some natural food that the Israelites had not been familiar with before. The quails were certainly natural and may have arrived by natural migration. But for the Israelites in that time and place, they were signs of God's care and power. Hence they were miracles.

The plagues over Egypt including the passover, the Red Sea crossing, judgement on the Egyptian army indicate miracles the defy naturalistic explanation. In Christian theology there is something theologians call the aseity of God which is basically, God's utter independance from everything else. When God acts in time and space it will be all together inexplicable how He did it, but totally comprehensive that God alone could have made this happen. The resurrection being the most signifigant event not subject to naturalistic interprutations.

Whether a miracle is natural or super-natural is not the point. It may be that "super-natural" means nothing more than "we don't understand how this happened". Maybe God never bends natural law, but is just using nature in ways we can't yet explain.

Or maybe, sometimes, God suspends natural doings.

I think it is pointless to try and determine whether or not natural process was suspended, because that is not what makes an event a miracle.

What makes an event a miracle is that it powerfully demonstrates the presence of God. On that basis I certainly accept that the incarnation, resurrection, ascension and many other events in the bible are miraculous events which actually occurred.

I would agree that SOMETIMES something being supernatural/miracle is unimportant. I know that sometimes when I tell people I think God spoke to Job out of a literal whirlwind they look at me as if I just said french toast is good with maple surup. Maybe that is just an interprutation that doesn't make a whole lot of difference.

Genesis, on the other hand, is not a book to be taken lightly, there are 4 crucial events and four crucial people that are foundational to redemptive history. Redemptive history is not only based on them, it often reflects on them in later narratives and doctrines.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[gluadys]

The New Testament shows a lot of events that can only be described as miracles.

And not all of them require altering the course of nature.

Genesis is marked by historical accounts aka narratives that don't suggest any kind of allegory.

But we will disagree as to which parts of Genesis fall into that category. Personally I don't think any of the accounts in Genesis are only history. Like most "histories" of ancient times, there is at least as much legend as history in them.

Genesis presents creation by divine fiat, ex nihilo 'out of nothing'. The fall of man is directly tied to the sin of Adam both in Genesis and key places in the New Testament ( Luke 3:38; Romans 5:12-21)

Agreed. Of course, whether 'ha-adam' is a specific, historical individual is a question open to interpretation.

"For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:17)

Agreed with the same proviso as above.

The New Testament could have simply emphasised your personal responsibility, and does, but also emphasised an historical person Adam.

The NT does not state that Adam was a historical person, and all NT references to Adam make as much sense for a representative or formal Adam as for a historical Adam.

The plagues over Egypt including the passover, the Red Sea crossing, judgement on the Egyptian army indicate miracles the defy naturalistic explanation.

I have seen proposed naturalistic explanations for these. I won't go into them because, as I said, I don't think determining whether a miracle is natural or supernatural has anything to do with it being a miracle. If all the above have plausible natural explanations, they are still miracles.

In Christian theology there is something theologians call the aseity of God which is basically, God's utter independance from everything else. When God acts in time and space it will be all together inexplicable how He did it, but totally comprehensive that God alone could have made this happen.

This is true even if God uses natural forces, for the unanswered question is still relevant: how does a non-physical being order the course of events in physical reality?

Perhaps one way to think about this more deeply is to move away from events in nature and look at events in history. For a clear teaching of scripture is that God controls the affairs of nations as he does the course of nature. But how does he do that? How did he bring about the fall of Assyria at the hands of Babylon, and then the fall of Babylon at the hands of Persia? As far as we can see, no supernatural force was used in either case. So why do we ascribe such historical events to the will and power of God?

Genesis, on the other hand, is not a book to be taken lightly,

Please, you are conversant enough with the issues now to know that an ahistorical reading does not equate to taking Genesis lightly.

 

[mark kennedy]

And not all of them require altering the course of nature.

I don't know that this is an alteration of nature, more like setting the natural course right. The healings of the New Testament have allways seemed to me to be restoring living systems to be as God intended.

But we will disagree as to which parts of Genesis fall into that category. Personally I don't think any of the accounts in Genesis are only history. Like most "histories" of ancient times, there is at least as much legend as history in them.

Abraham Issac and Jacob are historicial figures along with the miracles associated with them. All the major events of Genesis are tied directly to the events of the New Testament. Taking them as legends makes the whole historical element suspect.

Agreed. Of course, whether 'ha-adam' is a specific, historical individual is a question open to interpretation.

This concept Adam being some kind of a myth or legend is not entertained by the New Testament writters.

Agreed with the same proviso as above.

I know, but that is a modernist interprutation, like many of the interprutations of natural science. Scientists have traditionally embraced the idea of Intelligent Design in some form. Now even the suggestion that life is the product of an idea is shunned. While I see the importance of this in natural science, I have to draw the line with redemptive history.

The NT does not state that Adam was a historical person, and all NT references to Adam make as much sense for a representative or formal Adam as for a historical Adam.

You will not find that alternative in the teachings of Christ, Paul or anywhere in the New Testament. He is spoken of plainly as the first man and all the generations of humanity to have descended from him bodily.

I have seen proposed naturalistic explanations for these. I won't go into them because, as I said, I don't think determining whether a miracle is natural or supernatural has anything to do with it being a miracle. If all the above have plausible natural explanations, they are still miracles.

Sometimes a miracle is by definition something beyond natural explanation. The only explanation would be God with the only alternative to that is ascribing it to elements of nature. Ascribing to nature was is rightfully ascribed to God is spoken of strongly in Scripture. Remember the Golden Calf at Sinai? What they said was this is who led you out of Egypt, the conseqeunces for the were pretty sever as I recall.

That said, I think sometimes 'I don't know' is a pretty intelligent answer. How did God create all life by divine fiat? How did God confuse the languages at Bable? How is it possible to drowned an entire planet? Abraham and Sarah as how a baby could be conceived from a 99 year old womans womb. Honestly, I can understand a persons skepticism about certain things.

This is true even if God uses natural forces, for the unanswered question is still relevant: how does a non-physical being order the course of events in physical reality?

He does, He does historically and will again. The Scripture make it clear that he will recreate the heavens and the earth again. That we will be raised incorruptable and live forever with God as our light and no need for the sun. How is He going to accomplish this? God only knows.

Perhaps one way to think about this more deeply is to move away from events in nature and look at events in history. For a clear teaching of scripture is that God controls the affairs of nations as he does the course of nature. But how does he do that? How did he bring about the fall of Assyria at the hands of Babylon, and then the fall of Babylon at the hands of Persia? As far as we can see, no supernatural force was used in either case. So why do we ascribe such historical events to the will and power of God?

Have you never read Danial, Esther or Nehemiah? These books don't ascribe anything to the course of nature but to the will of God. Perhaps emphasising miracles becomes conterproductive after a while. Ben Franklin in 1789 asked the Contenintal Congress to pray and seek God's guidance. Had it not been for this they would have been 13 countries with no Federal Constitution, at least according to many there who wittnessed this. Is that a miracle, I suppose you could conclude that it's not, but it sure sounds like a good possibility.

Please, you are conversant enough with the issues now to know that an ahistorical reading does not equate to taking Genesis lightly.

Of course I realize that and I really don't mind if some of the events in Genesis seem exaggerated to some. I remember Dr. Walter Martin used to teach a local flood. He was one of the strongest evangelicals around for years and a leading Christian apologetics scholar.

Still, taking Genesis literally dovetails nicely with the New Testament. It makes the theology far more consistant and is in perfect harmony with the traditional view of the church.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[gluadys]

I don't know that this is an alteration of nature, more like setting the natural course right. The healings of the New Testament have allways seemed to me to be restoring living systems to be as God intended.

I like that description.

Abraham Issac and Jacob are historicial figures along with the miracles associated with them. All the major events of Genesis are tied directly to the events of the New Testament. Taking them as legends makes the whole historical element suspect.

We have not verified that they are historical, though I see no reason to doubt it either. Most legends have a historical core, (one of the things that differentiates legend from myth) so I don't see how this makes the historical element suspect.

This concept Adam being some kind of a myth or legend is not entertained by the New Testament writters.

Maybe because they took it for granted?

I know, but that is a modernist interprutation, like many of the interprutations of natural science.

That doesn't make it wrong. It is a modern meteorological interpretation that lightning is produced by electric discharges in the atmosphere--as opposed to the ancient belief that they were thrown by God. Which interpretation do you think accounts for lightning?

Now even the suggestion that life is the product of an idea is shunned. While I see the importance of this in natural science, I have to draw the line with redemptive history.

Even if life is the product of an idea, it has to have a physical cause as well. Ideas have to take on material properties in some way to exist in a material world.

This takes us back to the question of how a non-physical Being is able to affect a physical process.

You will not find that alternative in the teachings of Christ, Paul or anywhere in the New Testament. He is spoken of plainly as the first man and all the generations of humanity to have descended from him bodily.

I disagree that it is all that plain. Other interpretations are possible.

Sometimes a miracle is by definition something beyond natural explanation.

I disagree that being something beyond natural explanation is what defines a miracle.

Note that this is not the same as disagreeing that such events may occur.

Ascribing to nature was is rightfully ascribed to God is spoken of strongly in Scripture. Remember the Golden Calf at Sinai? What they said was this is who led you out of Egypt, the conseqeunces for the were pretty sever as I recall.

Since when is a brass calf natural?

How is He going to accomplish this? God only knows.

Exactly. Knowing that God does something does not tell us how he does it.

Have you never read Danial, Esther or Nehemiah? These books don't ascribe anything to the course of nature but to the will of God.

That's right. They say the political changes of their time were brought about by the will of God. But they don't point to any supernatural event either.

Would anyone who was not a Jew have agreed that Persia conquered Babylon because the Jewish god acted? Is there any reason for a modern agnostic historian to attribute the rise of Persia and the fall of Babylon to the action of the God of Israel? What objective evidence can you cite for this assertion?

(Note, I am not saying the biblical writers were wrong to make the assertion. But what is the basis of it?)

Ben Franklin in 1789 asked the Contenintal Congress to pray and seek God's guidance. Had it not been for this they would have been 13 countries with no Federal Constitution, at least according to many there who wittnessed this. Is that a miracle, I suppose you could conclude that it's not, but it sure sounds like a good possibility.

Yes, it is certainly a good possibility. But would that possibility occur to a person who does not believe in God and miracles?

Still, taking Genesis literally dovetails nicely with the New Testament. It makes the theology far more consistant and is in perfect harmony with the traditional view of the church.

Grace and peace,
Mark

That's your opinion, of course. My experience is that I get much more out of Genesis, and a more consistent interpretation of the whole bible, when I take a different approach.

 

[mark kennedy]

I like that description.

Of course here I am refering to healing, striking someone with leprosy is a little different obviously.

We have not verified that they are historical, though I see no reason to doubt it either. Most legends have a historical core, (one of the things that differentiates legend from myth) so I don't see how this makes the historical element suspect.

Coming out of the Upper Room at Pentecost the believers (I assume the Apostles) came out proclaiming the wonderfull works of God. Moses throught the Wilderness wanderings whenever they would stop he would review the things God had did for them along the way. In the Revelation the angles sing in the period between the trumpets and the vials of wrath:

"Great and marvalous are your deeds,
Lord God Allmighty.
Right and true are all your ways,
King of the ages.
Who will not worship you oh Lord,
and give glory to your name?
For you alone are holy.
All nations shall come, and worship before thee.
For your righteous deeds have been revealed."

(A lyrical paraphrase based primarily on the NIV version of Revelation 15:3,4)​

Notice the parts I have bolded and consider this. God's deeds are being revealed and have been progressivly revealed as a part of redemptive history. Will we consider some deeds legend, myth or redemptive historical events where God acted in time and space? No elaborate response is being called for or needed. I am pointing out the Scripture as an historical narrative is vital to the Gospel. You may not agree entirely with the Creationist view but I trust you understand where it comes from.

Maybe because they took it for granted?

Perhaps the regarded it as a simple fact and Adam as an historical figure. Jesus never refered to Adam any other way, nor did any of the New Testament writters.

That doesn't make it wrong. It is a modern meteorological interpretation that lightning is produced by electric discharges in the atmosphere--as opposed to the ancient belief that they were thrown by God. Which interpretation do you think accounts for lightning?

Actually, that was Zeus that threw lightning bolts. God's judgments include things like famine, plague, locusts and the fall of godless regimes. What is more, what distinguished Yahwew (the Hebrew God) can be summed up in one word, righteousness. The Grecian gods were capricious and could punish or bless on a whim. The God of the Hebrews dealt recompense for sin and wickedness. It might interest you to know that one of God's favorite complaints was the mistreatment of the poor. This is second only to the worship of 'other gods' of course.

One of the big differences in Zeus raining down lightning bolts was God announced well beforhand that he would do something. The mark of a true prophet is the reliablity of the predictions made explicitly.

Even if life is the product of an idea, it has to have a physical cause as well. Ideas have to take on material properties in some way to exist in a material world.

That is why Aristotle was such an important influence on Medieval philosophy, even theology. He discerned between a material cause and the primary first cause. I don't know how interested in epistimology or Medieval philosophy but I suppose that's a subject for another time. However, it might interest you to know that Galileo went before the Inqusition not for contradicting the Bible so much (that was brought up) but primarily for contradicting Aristotle.

This takes us back to the question of how a non-physical Being is able to affect a physical process.

It brings up the question of whether or not a physical process can ever be attributed to God. Once God has created something I think it's safe to assume it will function like a well crafted watch. Theologians sometimes call this divine providence and there are a number of natural mechanisms God need not micromanage. There are other things that require His direct action, redemption being the most important.

I disagree that it is all that plain. Other interpretations are possible.

Other interpretations exist and in some instances abound. From an evangelical perspective the rule of thumb is, what do the Scripture plainly say? We speak where the Scriptures speak and should be silent were the Scriptures are silent. Like any rule of thumb discerning where that line is drawn is sometimes difficult.

I disagree that being something beyond natural explanation is what defines a miracle.

That need not be a hard and fast definition but certainly an aspect of, at least, some miracles. The Catholics supposedly go thru and look for naturalistic explanations before deciding something is a miracle. I see no reason why someone couldn't use a little discernment when looking at miracles.

Note that this is not the same as disagreeing that such events may occur.

Understood.

Since when is a brass calf natural?

Aaron said that he threw the gold in the fire and this calf popped out, that was his explanation. However, you are missing the main point here. They attributed to a golden calf what was rightfully attributed to God.

"Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man-and birds and foru-footed animals and creeping things." (Romans 1:23)​

Exactly. Knowing that God does something does not tell us how he does it.

Yes of course, but knowing that God acted in time and space is indeed knowable. This includes, but is not limited to creation:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse."

(Romans 1:18-20)​

[note: This is aimed at all of us, not unlike the fool in Proverbs, this passage is talking about us, not them]

That's right. They say the political changes of their time were brought about by the will of God. But they don't point to any supernatural event either.

I say again, have you ever read Danial? We should have a Bible Study of some kind. I wonder if a spin off thread might be of interest.

Would anyone who was not a Jew have agreed that Persia conquered Babylon because the Jewish god acted? Is there any reason for a modern agnostic historian to attribute the rise of Persia and the fall of Babylon to the action of the God of Israel? What objective evidence can you cite for this assertion?

"And at the end of the time I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my understanding returned to me; and I blessed the Most High and praised and honerd Him who lives forever:" (Daniel 4:34a)​

(Note, I am not saying the biblical writers were wrong to make the assertion. But what is the basis of it?)

The same confirmation that the Apostles had that marked them as apostles. Signs, miracles and mighty deeds.

Yes, it is certainly a good possibility. But would that possibility occur to a person who does not believe in God and miracles?

"without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him". (Hebrews 11:6)​

When God rewards you for this sort of seeking, it's a miracle. Being born again is a miracle that comes by the power of the Holy Spirit. I think it's conceivable that someone could hear and believe the gospel without considering whether or not some miracles happened. Of course, with the resurrection you are not left with that particular option.

That's your opinion, of course. My experience is that I get much more out of Genesis, and a more consistent interpretation of the whole bible, when I take a different approach.

I suppose you have a point, so tell me, what would you say is the gospel according to Moses? Jesus made it clear that all of the prophets spoke of him, what did Moses proclaim as gospel?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[gluadys]

Coming out of the Upper Room at Pentecost the believers (I assume the Apostles) came out proclaiming the wonderfull works of God. Moses throught the Wilderness wanderings whenever they would stop he would review the things God had did for them along the way. In the Revelation the angles sing in the period between the trumpets and the vials of wrath:


Notice the parts I have bolded and consider this. God's deeds are being revealed and have been progressivly revealed as a part of redemptive history.

So, would they be considered God's deeds if they had not been revealed as God's deeds? Why does it take revelation to identify certain events as God's deeds? Why is that not self-evident from the event itself?

Perhaps the regarded it as a simple fact and Adam as an historical figure. Jesus never refered to Adam any other way, nor did any of the New Testament writters.

Perhaps. But we don't know that. You are projecting your own literalism onto Jesus and you have no warrant for doing that.

Actually, that was Zeus that threw lightning bolts.

And did not the Jews attribute all the powers of all pagan gods to the God of Israel?

However, it might interest you to know that Galileo went before the Inqusition not for contradicting the Bible so much (that was brought up) but primarily for contradicting Aristotle.

Both actually. The bible does say in several places that the earth does not move. It is also true that the theology of the late medieval church was thoroughly Aristotelian.

It brings up the question of whether or not a physical process can ever be attributed to God. Once God has created something I think it's safe to assume it will function like a well crafted watch. Theologians sometimes call this divine providence and there are a number of natural mechanisms God need not micromanage.

But the initial creation still involves a divine touch on material substance.

Other interpretations exist and in some instances abound. From an evangelical perspective the rule of thumb is, what do the Scripture plainly say?

Where other interpretations abound, it is clear that the scripture do not speak plainly. All you are doing is identifying your preferred interpretation as "plain".

That need not be a hard and fast definition but certainly an aspect of, at least, some miracles. The Catholics supposedly go thru and look for naturalistic explanations before deciding something is a miracle. I see no reason why someone couldn't use a little discernment when looking at miracles.

The Catholic church has also succumbed to positivism in this regard. Note that these rules were drawn up in the 19th century.

Aaron said that he threw the gold in the fire and this calf popped out, that was his explanation. However, you are missing the main point here. They attributed to a golden calf what was rightfully attributed to God.

Your original contention is that they were attributing to nature what was rightly attributed to God. This passage does not identify the golden calf as natural.

Yes of course, but knowing that God acted in time and space is indeed knowable.

So what are the signs that some historical event is God's action? Proclaiming that an event is due to the action of God (as the authors of the bible do) is not the same thing as demonstrating that it is.

Again, I am not disputing that some things happen by the will of God. I am just asking how would a non-Christian know they are from God? Why would they believe a Christian who says they are acts of God?

Case in point: Jeremiah 44:15-18 shows that not everyone agreed the destruction of Jerusalem was due to failure to eradicate idolatry in Judah. The women believed rather that it was failure to continue to worship the queen of heaven that had brought catastrophe on them.

Naturally, we tend to think Jeremiah was right, not the women. But do we have any objective basis for siding with Jeremiah?

I say again, have you ever read Danial? We should have a Bible Study of some kind. I wonder if a spin off thread might be of interest.

In the first place Daniel is a book of apocalyptic, not history. In the second place, even the book of Daniel does not suggest the Persians depended on supernatural events to conquer Babylon.

So what is the objective basis for attributing this military conquest to the action of God on history?

The same confirmation that the Apostles had that marked them as apostles. Signs, miracles and mighty deeds.

I still don't see anything other than human assertion that they are mighty deeds of God.

"without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him". (Hebrews 11:6)​

And that is the point I am making. Without faith, the action of God in history becomes invisible.

I suppose you have a point, so tell me, what would you say is the gospel according to Moses? Jesus made it clear that all of the prophets spoke of him, what did Moses proclaim as gospel?

Grace and peace,
Mark

That the God who created all things chose the ancestors of the Israelites to be a blessing to all nations, and acted to liberate them from oppression in Egypt and now made a covenant with them, giving them a Law by which they should live, a Law that would be a blessing to them if they observed it and a curse to them if they did not. And that in due time, God would send another prophet "like Moses" to lead them.

 

[mark kennedy]

So, would they be considered God's deeds if they had not been revealed as God's deeds? Why does it take revelation to identify certain events as God's deeds? Why is that not self-evident from the event itself?

These are not neutral events, they are the 'righteous deeds' of the Living God. The three angels in the Revelation said 'You alone are holy'. What is being revealed is far more then God's triumph over other gods. It is the righteouness of God that is being revealed in Scripture.

"But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ to all and on all who believe."

(Romans 3:21)​

The key element is righteousness, the miracles of the New Testament confirm Christ's message. Jesus in John 8 has a lengthy argument with the Pharasees. The considered Jesus a sinner because he healed on the Sabbath and for other reasons. It might interest you to know that the charge 'give glory to God' binds a person to an oath:

So they again called the man who was blind and said to him. "Give God the glory! We know that this Man is a sinner."

He answered and said, "Whether He is a sinner or not I do not know. One thing I know: that though I was blind, Now I see...The man answered and said to them, Why, this is a marvelous thing, that you do not know where He is from; yet He has opened my eyes! Now we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears him. Since the world began is has been unheard of that anyone opened the eyes of one who was born blind. If this man was not from God, He could do nothing"

(John 9:24,25, 30-33)​

Perhaps. But we don't know that. You are projecting your own literalism onto Jesus and you have no warrant for doing that.

It was Jesus who appealed to the miracles as confirmation of His authority.

"Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves."​

(John 14:9-11)

And did not the Jews attribute all the powers of all pagan gods to the God of Israel?

No, they proclaimed through the prophets that God was the Most High.

Both actually. The bible does say in several places that the earth does not move. It is also true that the theology of the late medieval church was thoroughly Aristotelian.

You have to take into consideration that from their perspective the celestial objects in the heaven moved around the earth. It was not untill the invention of the telescope that they realized the earth revolved around the sun.

But the initial creation still involves a divine touch on material substance.

The material substance itself requires a divine fiat. This is where the ex nihilo doctrine comes from.

Where other interpretations abound, it is clear that the scripture do not speak plainly. All you are doing is identifying your preferred interpretation as "plain".

I did say that sometimes it is hard to discern exactly where the line is drawn. These are some fairly typical verses ascribing to God. There is a very important theological issue that focuses on the use of a very special word for God's creative works:

"bara- "To create, make". This verb is of profound theological significance, since it has only God as its subject. Only God can "create" in the sense implied by bara. The verb expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Gen. 1:1, 2:3; Isa. 40:26; 42:42:25)

(Vines Expository Dictionary, Vine, Unger, White)​

The Catholic church has also succumbed to positivism in this regard. Note that these rules were drawn up in the 19th century.

I do hope you are not suggesting Scientific postitivism:

"To bring about the reign of altruism Comte invented a religion which substituted for God an abstraction called Humanity. To this new supreme being, worship was to be paid, especially in its manifestations and representatives, woman, namely, and the benefactors of the race. "

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01369a.htm

Your original contention is that they were attributing to nature what was rightly attributed to God. This passage does not identify the golden calf as natural.

The made an image of God like a calf, they ascribed to this image the power of God. They refused to believe in a God they could not see so they errected an idol.

So what are the signs that some historical event is God's action? Proclaiming that an event is due to the action of God (as the authors of the bible do) is not the same thing as demonstrating that it is.

That would depend on what is being demonstrated.

Again, I am not disputing that some things happen by the will of God. I am just asking how would a non-Christian know they are from God? Why would they believe a Christian who says they are acts of God?

Why would they believe anything Christians regard as history?

Case in point: Jeremiah 44:15-18 shows that not everyone agreed the destruction of Jerusalem was due to failure to eradicate idolatry in Judah. The women believed rather that it was failure to continue to worship the queen of heaven that had brought catastrophe on them.

Naturally, we tend to think Jeremiah was right, not the women. But do we have any objective basis for siding with Jeremiah?

When Jeremiah gave them the Word of the Lord, it was accompanied by a sign:

Behold, I will watch over them for adversity, and not for good. And all the men of Judah who are in the land of Egypt shall be consumed by the sword and by famine until there is an end to them...and this will be a sign to you, says the Lord"

(Jeremiah 44:27, 29)

In the first place Daniel is a book of apocalyptic, not history.

Actually, it has both history and apocalyptic prophecy. Danial was a prophet in the courts of Nebuchadnezzar. He was there the night that Babylon fell at Belshazzar's feast. He was still there during the reign of Darius. From chapter 7 on the focus is almost exclusively apocalyptic. In response the Daniel's prayer he recieves the vision of the 70 weeks. These are the most precise prophetic writings in Scripture. Daniel makes gets this vision in 539 BC. Literal fullfillment comes in 446 BC when Nehemiah recieves a charter from Artaxerxes to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. Esther becomes Queen in 483 BC and this spans very specific periods of history.

Daniel is written in an historical setting and should not regarded as some ill founded legend.

In the second place, even the book of Daniel does not suggest the Persians depended on supernatural events to conquer Babylon.

They attributed the fall of Babylon to the sin of Belshazzar. He praised pagan gods with cups from the Temple of Jerusalem.

So what is the objective basis for attributing this military conquest to the action of God on history?

It is God's judgments visted on very real historical figures. Redemptive history is directly tied to the promises of the gospel. The signifigance is that God had acted historically and continues to perform His 'Righteous Deeds'. The Revelation is about these righteous deeds being 'revealed'. This is absolutly vital to the gospel.

I still don't see anything other than human assertion that they are mighty deeds of God.

I really don't see how you are missing it.

And that is the point I am making. Without faith, the action of God in history becomes invisible.

I suppose that is at least a tenable statement.

That the God who created all things chose the ancestors of the Israelites to be a blessing to all nations, and acted to liberate them from oppression in Egypt and now made a covenant with them, giving them a Law by which they should live, a Law that would be a blessing to them if they observed it and a curse to them if they did not. And that in due time, God would send another prophet "like Moses" to lead them.

What a wonderfull exposition and you are absolutly right. That is the gospel according to Moses.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[gluadys]

These are not neutral events, they are the 'righteous deeds' of the Living God. The three angels in the Revelation said 'You alone are holy'. What is being revealed is far more then God's triumph over other gods. It is the righteouness of God that is being revealed in Scripture.

So basically you are saying that we don't know that an event is God's doing from the nature of the event itself. We need revelation to identify the mighty and righteous acts of God.

Without revelation, they would appear to be ordinary political (or social, economic, natural, etc.) events. Without revelation, Jesus' death was merely one more crucifixion of a political dissident.

It was Jesus who appealed to the miracles as confirmation of His authority.

When did we switch the topic? We were discussing whether Jesus considered Adam to be a literal, historical individual.

No, they proclaimed through the prophets that God was the Most High.

And as the Most High, was he not the one who sent lightning?

You have to take into consideration that from their perspective the celestial objects in the heaven moved around the earth. It was not untill the invention of the telescope that they realized the earth revolved around the sun.

No, Copernicus did not have a telescope. He based his helio-centric system purely on mathematics. That is one reason his ideas were controversial. His math was simpler, but that is not a firm basis for saying his theory was right.

The invention of the telescope after his death permitted observations which affirmed his theory.

The material substance itself requires a divine fiat. This is where the ex nihilo doctrine comes from.

Right. But both Genesis and modern science affirm that what came into existence in the beginning was not an ordered cosmos. So there is still the question of making a cosmos out of a chaos--of establishing the natural processes that govern nature.

There is a very important theological issue that focuses on the use of a very special word for God's creative works:

Don't know where you are going with this. It doesn't respond to the issue. It is still the case that if other interpretations abound, one cannot speak of scripture being "plain". To single out one interpretation among several as "plain" and therefore "correct" is begging the question.

I do hope you are not suggesting Scientific postitivism:

I believe I attributed that to the Catholic Church in regard to the way it assesses miracles. Why would you draw the conclusion I was talking about myself?

The made an image of God like a calf, they ascribed to this image the power of God. They refused to believe in a God they could not see so they errected an idol.

Every so often, I get the impression that you have totally forgotten what you originally said. You originally brought up this example of the Israelites attributing to nature what should be attributed to God. I am simply pointing out that a molten calf is not a product of nature.

Why would they believe anything Christians regard as history?

On the basis of evidence. There is a lot of history written by Christians which is believed to be true by non-Christians. And a lot of history written by non-Christians which is believed to be true by Christians.

Do we doubt the existence of Amenhotep or Pericles because their histories were not written by Christians? Do non-Christians doubt the existence of Charlemagne or Alfred the Great of Britain because their histories were written by Christians?


History itself does not present a belief problem. It is attributing the historical events to the will and action of God that poses the question: how do you know this train of events is due to the will and action of God?


Especially when we know that history is normally written by the victors who will always claim God is on their side.

When Jeremiah gave them the Word of the Lord, it was accompanied by a sign:

Behold, I will watch over them for adversity, and not for good. And all the men of Judah who are in the land of Egypt shall be consumed by the sword and by famine until there is an end to them...and this will be a sign to you, says the Lord"

(Jeremiah 44:27, 29)

I don't know what your point is. Of course, we expect Jeremiah to preach along this line. Do you think the ladies believed him and stopped worshipping the queen of heaven? Do you think, when the sign came to pass, they might not have their own explanation for it?

And, btw, when did this sign come to pass anyway? The Diaspora community of Jews in Egypt was still there centuries later.

Actually, it has both history and apocalyptic prophecy. Danial was a prophet in the courts of Nebuchadnezzar. He was there the night that Babylon fell at Belshazzar's feast. He was still there during the reign of Darius.

I grant that Daniel was probably a historical person. But the first 7 chapters of the book of Daniel are unlikely to be any more historical than the apocalyptic it finishes with. The events are too carefully chosen to reflect the situation in Judea at the time of its writing.

Daniel is written in an historical setting and should not regarded as some ill founded legend.

Lots of fictional stories are placed in historical settings.

They attributed the fall of Babylon to the sin of Belshazzar. He praised pagan gods with cups from the Temple of Jerusalem.

The Jews did. What about the Babylonians themselves? What about the Persians? What about other peoples like the Egyptians?

Besides, you are still missing the point. Even accepting that sacrilege was the reason God decreed the downfall of Babylon, that doesn't tell us how God brought about the event. Even the biblical records of the fall of Babylon do not suggest that the Persian conquest depended on any supernatural event. Sacrilege tells us why God acted. It doesn't tell us how.

So, apart from Jewish claims, how do we know this was an example of God acting in history?

It is God's judgments visted on very real historical figures. Redemptive history is directly tied to the promises of the gospel. The signifigance is that God had acted historically and continues to perform His 'Righteous Deeds'. The Revelation is about these righteous deeds being 'revealed'. This is absolutly vital to the gospel.

Mark, I am not disputing anything you are saying here. But you are still side-stepping the issue. I asked for an objective basis for attributing the Persian conquest of Babylon to the judgment of God. By "objective" I mean a basis which would be accepted by non-Jews and non-Christians.

But you just keep giving me theology-and theology is for those who already believe.

I really don't see how you are missing it.

Let me explain it as simply as I can.

There are things we can observe objectively in history. e.g. Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC. Sennacharib was assassinated in 681 BC.

I don't think I have ever heard the assassination of Caesar called a judgment of God, but the assassination of Sennacherib is viewed as God's judgment on him by the biblical writers. I don't disagree with the biblical writers. But I ask: what distinguishes one from the other in the eyes of an impartial viewer?

I can see why Hezekiah and the people of Jerusalem would say the defeat of Sennacherib and his subsequent death was an act of God.

But I doubt that Esarhaddon (Sennacherib's son, assassin and successor) thought Hezekiah's god had anything to do with it.

What makes Esarhaddon an instrument of God's judgment when Brutus is just an assassin for a political agenda?

As far as I can see, historically, all we have are two political assassinations. One of them is interpreted theologically by the biblical writers as the judgment of God. But that is an interpretation of the event. There is nothing in the event itself that marks it as God's doing.

Is that clear?

Same goes for many of the other events in history that have been called part of redemptive history. Take away revelation, take away faith, and one has only ordinary historical events that no one would think to call acts of God unless something/someone told them this event was special.

I suppose that is at least a tenable statement.

Unless you can find an exception to what I stated above, it is certainly tenable.

What a wonderfull exposition and you are absolutly right. That is the gospel according to Moses.

Grace and peace,
Mark

See, you don't have to be a literalist to understand what the bible teaches. Or to believe it.

 

[shernren]

Is it just me, or is there some sort of a correlation between a God-of-the-gaps understanding of nature and a leaning towards YECism?

In Christian theology there is something theologians call the aseity of God which is basically, God's utter independance from everything else. When God acts in time and space it will be all together inexplicable how He did it, but totally comprehensive that God alone could have made this happen.

I understand (somewhat) the aseity of God. What I do not understand is how your describing the aseity of God leads on to your next statement, in essence that any action of God is fundamentally inexplicable. Here is a fundamental example.

Is it scientifically possible for me to confess with my mouth "Jesus is Lord?"

If yes, then my confession cannot be a result of God's action (since it is scientifically explicable, and God's actions in time and space are fundamentally inexplicable), in direct contradiction to the revelation of Scripture.
If no, then explain which laws of science are broken in the process of my uttering four English syllables.

It brings up the question of whether or not a physical process can ever be attributed to God. Once God has created something I think it's safe to assume it will function like a well crafted watch. Theologians sometimes call this divine providence and there are a number of natural mechanisms God need not micromanage. There are other things that require His direct action, redemption being the most important.

And why should it (function like a well crafted watch)? We know that God is independent from nature; but how and why should we take it to mean that nature can be independent from God?

Gotta run for (nearly typed from, lol) class.