Re: Non-truths that do not transform

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
Date: Fri Apr 29 2005 - 16:42:25 EDT

Jim,
I admire your persistence but wonder about your good sense. How do you
expect to alter INVINCIBLE ignorance? Vernon KNOWS (that needs at least
144 point type) that he's RIGHT. He's going to correct the Almighty when
he sees him.
Dave

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 22:25:44 -0700 "Jim Armstrong" <jarmstro@qwest.net>
writes:
> I expect this is waste motion, given that some of these points have
> been
> made before, to no avail. However, this is a forum for discussion,
> and
> scripture talks of "rehearsing these things among themselves".
> And it helps me in the long run to articulate these arguments.
> So...
>
> Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>
> > Hi Christopher,
> >
> > As promised, some observations on the 'apparent age' issue:
> >
> > You will know that, in the words of the Apostle Paul, "All
> > (Judaeo-Christian) scripture is given by inspiration of God, and
> is
> > profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
> instruction
> > in righteousness..." (AV, 2Tm.3:16).
>
> Once again, this this is a statement from a NT letter, referring to
> the
> OT scriptures, not "Judaeo-Christian" scripture. One can only get to
>
> "Judaeo-Christian" (in the sense of changing the purvue of this
> passage
> to include letters written after the OT texts, AND in some cases,
> even
> after the writing of Timothy!) by adding some assumptions, an action
> I
> would think you would eschew.
>
> > Putting this another way, the Bible represents a body of _divine
> > revelation_ which (as Paul says in Eph.6:17) is intended to
> function
> > as the "sword of the (Holy) Spirit".
>
>
> And how, on the basis of the Genesis creation account, can you think
> of
> the indellible writing of Creation itself as less a thing of divine
>
> creation? Or less than divine expression?
> How and when, and by what power, did that "thing" with its creative
>
> impulse and designed-in, built-in structure and intent become
> somehow
> less than divine?
>
> You suggest that we should automatically subordinate the expressions
> in
> nature to the expressions in scripture.
> I ask, which expression is most amenable to nuancing at the human
> hand?
> Is it the writing on paper, or the writing in stone, ... or in the
> stars?
> Which of these CANNOT be limited by human constraints of thought,
> or
> language and translation, temporal changes in culture or tradition,
> and
> agendas?
>
> I'm NOT saying the message embodied in physical creation is
> preferred.
> I'm just saying that it is a valid and intentional second testament,
>
> written with a different and timeless mode of communication,
> intended to
> complement the first, and as such should not be dismissed.
>
> Is it really so unremarkable that Creation is incredibly
> discoverable,
> susceptible to progressive understanding as our bases for
> interpreting
> and tools for discovery increase?
>
> My sense is that the testimony of nature is both intended to be
> understandable and created to be durable and not inclined to
> mislead,
> else how....pray how ....can Romans 1:20 say,
> "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
>
> clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
>
> eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."?
>
> > However, it is clear that this becomes a blunt (hence, useless)
> weapon
> > in the hand of the Christian who allows wordly wisdom to question
> the
> > Authority of this unique Book. Such people apparently believe
> that no
> > one should be _deceived_ by its claims - particularly as these
> relate
> > to ultimate origins and earth history.
>
> I am still baffled by folks' unwillingness to examine the handwork
> of
> the Creator for what it might have to say about its maker.
> It was declared "good", a pronouncement that to my knowledge was not
>
> rescinded.
> To think that a subordinate entity could have (or could be given)
> enough
> power could corrupt such a "good" thing is to cede a remarkable and
>
> unorthodox amount of power IMHO to the subordinate being.
> It happens in Job (to some extent), but one key aspect of the story
> is
> that releasing of the reins is unique.
>
> You seem to speak of "worldly wisdom" as if the powerful testimony
> of
> Creation somehow has nothing to do with the message and substance of
>
> scripture.
> No message? No purpose, other than to put us here?
>
> > But, in resisting these 'deceptions', do they not imply that God
> > himself is a would-be _deceiver_? - saying one thing, but meaning
>
> > another? Not wishing to put too fine a point on it, Christian
> > evolutionists and 'old-earthers' believe in a God who occasionally
>
> > seeks to deceive - they themselves being wise to the attempted
> > deceptions. It's a bit rich, then, that when I come along with a
>
> > reasoned defence of 'apparent age' and a young earth you
> immediately
> > step in with the accusation that the Creator must, therefore, be a
>
> > Deceiver!
>
> That's simply not what they said. They took issue with the "reasoned
>
> defence", your part of the equation.
>
> >
> > In the Creator's hands, those markers which convince you and
> others
> > that certain entities must indeed be very old, are not necessarily
>
> > there to deceive, but may serve another purpose of which we are
> > completely ignorant.
>
> Why should any of God's creation be understandable at all? It
> clearly
> need not be so. Nothing needs to be understandable, ...unless God
> deems
> it to be so.
> But our experience is that it IS understandable in part. At the end
> of
> the day we don't know which parts are "reserved", or even if that
> assumption is correct.
> What we know is that some of it is understandable and understood, by
>
> God's provision on both ends.
> If any of it is understandable, that is reason enough to be cautious
>
> about declarations about what is and always will be unknown.
> History
> speaks loud and clear about the dubious "wisdom" of such
> declarations.
> Since we have a history of progressive discovery and understanding,
> then
> we can reasonably expect that we will understand more from time to
> time
> in the future.
> And, we can similarly expect for our understanding to be revised and
>
> refined as we go, ...as we learn more.
>
> So let's not be quite so quick to blow off this gift of the
> Creator.
>
> Ignorance by choice is not the lesson of the "talents" in scripture.
>
> It's not about status quo. It's about acting in good stewardship to
>
> create opportunity out of riches entrusted to us.
>
> > For who are we to claim that the divine parameters within which
> the
> > creation was accomplished are, to us, an open book?
>
> Not an open book, but at least a library nonetheless, wherein we are
>
> children and some volumes are even in our language and simple enough
> for
> us to read...in time, and sometimes with a little help.
>
> > But aside from this, I have already drawn attention to scriptural
>
> > information which warns that mankind faces a _spiritual
> antagonist_
> > -and _real_ deceiver - who, clearly, has a considerable interest
> in
> > seeing the Word of God rubbished and our minds diverted from the
> > truths revealed therein. We are first introduced to this powerful
>
> > being in Gen.3:1-15; further details appear in Job 1:6-12, 2:1-7
> where
> > he is revealed as a petitioner and, even more remarkably, as God's
>
> > 'hatchet man'!
>
> God's hatchet man???? Oh my goodness, you must reread this story.
> God
> gave permission, but did not express intent in Satan's actions
> (assuming
> this story is historical).
> Even Jesus said he had no power save that which came of the
> Father!!
>
> > This last observation strongly suggests that the outworking of
> God's
> > agenda contains elements (like the crucifixion) that we cannot
> > possibly understand - indeed, were never intended to understand;
>
> > nevertheless, because they are clearly recorded they cannot,
> sensibly,
> > be ignored.
>
> Actually I agree that God's overall agenda is mostly quite beyond
> our
> ken, but I don't think your (or anyone's) personal conviction as to
> what
> is accessible or not is any more than that.
> A little more caution might be in order because the passage of time
> has
> historically not favored those who make these sorts of assertions.
>
> Moreover, isn't there just the tiniest bit to worry about in
> discounting
> God's physical creation and intent this way and attributing this
> kind of
> power to His adversary?
>
> >
> > So I suggest that you (and others) who reject the biblical account
> of
> > creation and of earth history (having, in effect, already judged
> God,
> > and found him wanting) are being tested by these 'wonders in the
> > heavens'. Such 'theatricals' are clearly within the scope of a
> being
> > who delights to deceive - and, for reasons which are completely
> beyond
> > our understanding, is being _allowed_ to deceive.
>
> Your interpretation. I hope that is not a significant offense to the
> one
> who holds the REAL power! Isn't there scripture that relates to
> attributing to Satan that which is the work of God?
>
> > As Christians, it is wise that we always remember that His
> thoughts
> > and ways are completely beyond our own. He has an _agenda_;
> whether we
> > like it or not, its fulfilment inevitably involves us!
>
> Missed again.
> They are not completely beyond our own understanding or we would not
>
> have any basis for our Christianity.
> We might have a theology, but not a Christianity.
> These folks you address are not rejecting the biblical account.
> That's
> another Vern perspective.
>
> Regards - JimA
>
>
>
>
Received on Fri Apr 29 16:46:50 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 29 2005 - 16:46:56 EDT