tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37724143314806358612024-03-18T18:19:20.324-07:00bylogosThe purpose of this blog is to promote a Christian worldview, based on the Bible as God's inerrant and fully authoritative Word, in accordance with the Reformed Confessions.john bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comBlogger170125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-91049943637966630332024-03-05T11:20:00.000-08:002024-03-05T11:20:56.690-08:00My Three E-Books<p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span><span>I have just updated my book <i>God and Cosmos: A Christian View of Time, Space, and the Universe</i>.</span><span> All three of my books are now available, free of charge, as e-books. To download the pdf files, just click on the links below. For some reason google.drive, where the pdf files are stored, can't handle epub files. If you prefer that format, please </span></span>send me an email at byl@twu.ca. If you spot any typos or have any comments, please send me an email as well.</span></p><p><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">1. <span><i>God and Cosmos: A Christian View of Time, Space, and the Universe</i>.</span><span> </span></span></b></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span>Download the pdf file <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nd5Xx5t7su3hsm1z4xJleLVz7iHdD7QK/view?usp=drive_link" target="_blank">here</a>. </span></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZCtVNyZcgPH0ZtWlZwWivlibxM8ir3NimJKP9yn9mo46Ieu55CJcYX_uaHccCFwr2l2xdMY6zDziuIhglkb-5QtHHHnQCn5usu6GmhxHcwLHI_N3OvKeqPlUy_S-0LkNpIjioGI3uGcCcLMagj3h5sF2kRjxyYXfWN0MesoB4w179tdseU5M1doDjseg/s1061/cos.titlef.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1061" data-original-width="824" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZCtVNyZcgPH0ZtWlZwWivlibxM8ir3NimJKP9yn9mo46Ieu55CJcYX_uaHccCFwr2l2xdMY6zDziuIhglkb-5QtHHHnQCn5usu6GmhxHcwLHI_N3OvKeqPlUy_S-0LkNpIjioGI3uGcCcLMagj3h5sF2kRjxyYXfWN0MesoB4w179tdseU5M1doDjseg/s320/cos.titlef.jpg" width="249" /></span></a></div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /><span><br /></span></span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Cosmology is the most important subject in
the world. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Why? Because it is the story of the entire
world: its origin, structure, purpose, and destiny. As people in that world,
its story necessarily forms the background for our own personal story. It concerns
our deepest beliefs, values, and hopes. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Our cosmology forms the basis for our response
to the most fundamental questions about our existence. Our cosmological beliefs
shape our morality, religion, and culture. They largely influence our
worldview.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Our prime aim is to examine and develop
cosmology from a Christian perspective. Very briefly, Christianity holds that
God created, from nothing, a two-realm universe consisting of both a visible and
a heavenly part, whose history follows God’s glorious plan. The original
creation was good. It culminated in the creation of Adam, created in the image
of God, to serve him and glorify Him. Unhappily, Adam’s fall into sin corrupted
man, along with the entire physical world. Happily, man can be redeemed through
the gracious work of Christ. After the Day of Judgment, believers will be
transformed to rule with Christ on a renewed Earth cleansed from sin and
corruption.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p>
</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">The main challenger to Christian cosmology
is Big Bang cosmology, the mainstream secular cosmology currently embraced by
most Western scientists and scholars.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">This book aims to probe beyond the usual
questions of origins and to dig deeper into various underlying philosophical
and theological issues. The emphasis will be on the philosophical presuppositions
and theological implications of modern cosmology, on the one hand, and, on the
other, the significance of the Bible for cosmology. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">
</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">To be accessible to the general reader, I
assume no prior technical knowledge of cosmology. Although specific
cosmological models tend to be highly mathematical, this book has only a few
simple equations. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><i><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></i><p></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><i><b>2. The Divine Challenge: On Matter, Mind, Math, and Meaning.</b> </i></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span>Download the pdf file </span><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/10Xlr2KPKo2mxiguHaoojvTxm1ihjtQmE/view?usp=sharing" target="_blank">here</a><span>. </span></span></p><p></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6Hq0vWePmyxSq1_X3ZqFsj-aFBRdTzQBqaOcstC_-VABmaSRv0oDJa9MkWkHiwEWU5hrvrksxut6wrc8raKHHOoUYwewc_C2JoXTEfy-rZjg0WM2is25RbdqwFZZ8pizFI1pBO_jgbSw/s1126/cover.dcf2.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1126" data-original-width="867" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6Hq0vWePmyxSq1_X3ZqFsj-aFBRdTzQBqaOcstC_-VABmaSRv0oDJa9MkWkHiwEWU5hrvrksxut6wrc8raKHHOoUYwewc_C2JoXTEfy-rZjg0WM2is25RbdqwFZZ8pizFI1pBO_jgbSw/w246-h320/cover.dcf2.png" width="246" /></span></a></div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /><span><br /></span></span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /><span><br /></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;">This book is about the war between God and fallen man. I</span><span style="font-family: arial; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">t concerns the double challenge, between God and man, to establish who will rule. The war will be addressed at the level of competing worldviews, and their ability to explain reality and assign meaning. The battleground will range over the realms of matter, mind, and math.</span></span></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">The prime purpose is the apologetic one of showing the superiority of the Christian worldview over its main competitors. The main thesis is that only Christianity offers a cohesive, meaningful worldview. The challenges of modern naturalism and post-modern relativism ultimately self-destruct.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span>This book is addressed to the intelligent non-expert. Although the discussion will range over various issues in science, math, philosophy, and theology, no prior knowledge of these disciplines is assumed. The aim is to convey the basic thrust of the arguments in non-technical language, as simply as possible. Nevertheless, some of these issues are very subtle, requiring the reader's close attention.</span></span></p><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><b>3. </b><i><b>How Should Christians View Origins?</b> </i> </span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Download the pdf file <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aR3P1sGPLhZVagQ4foz9jY_EaNRwZCUz/view?usp=sharing" target="_blank">here</a>.</span></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium; letter-spacing: normal;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1206" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJWvjHSpJ0apDwp7Cp0gAa4fwAQFSPjqQCHKORvThfnnrwzwtoQNnpmZRxgvGO2kFDbhOfi9kyJOX6UXOos20Fy_UEHGhW56feSyw_38CtfYaD1CVnlOZcNP0WT7efE6mREOxw_W3j1BI/s320/cover.rev.ed.new.jpg" style="text-align: center;" width="241" /></span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium; letter-spacing: normal;">Its description is as follows:</span></span></span></p><div><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Are you related to apes? Is Adam just a myth? Is evolution a fact? Is the earth billions of years old? Has science disproven the plain reading of the Bible, particularly concerning origins? Many Christians think so.</span></span></div><div><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">This booklet explores the nature of science and the influence of naturalism. It examines pertinent scientific evidence and biblical texts. It shows how basic Christian doctrines are grounded in the historicity of biblical events. It defends the traditional, plain-sense reading of Genesis.</span></span></div><div><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Much is at stake. Pastors, Bible teachers, church leaders, and students need to embrace a Christian worldview that fully upholds God's Word as the ultimate authority. This booklet provides a solid beginning toward this goal.</span></span></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">*****</span></span></p>john bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-58525193012050551672023-03-30T08:36:00.000-07:002023-03-30T08:36:28.063-07:00Big Bang Christianity?<p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;">In an earlier post I noted <a href="http://bylogos.blogspot.com/2023/03/the-importance-of-cosmology.html" target="_blank">the importance of cosmology</a> in providing the background story for a worldview. I contended that, to make Christianity plausible, one must critique the current secular worldview, particularly its Big Bang cosmology, and present </span><span style="font-family: arial;">Christianity as comprehensive worldview with its own, Christ-centered, cosmology.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Unfortunately, many Christian scientists and
theologians accept Big Bang cosmology as gospel truth, established beyond any reasonable
scientific doubt. They believe that, to make Christianity plausible to our society, Christians should embrace Big Bang cosmology.</span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span>Far from seeing Big Bang Cosmology (BBC) as a threat to Christianity, prominent apologists
such as William Craig and Stephen Meyer, believe it provides compelling
evidence of the biblical teaching of </span><i>creatio ex nihilo</i><span>, thus offering a useful step in proving the existence of a transcendent God. For example, Meyer
concludes,</span></span></p>
<p class="Quote1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US">"Taken jointly, general relativity and the Big
Bang theory provide a scientific description of what Christian theologians have
long described in doctrinal terms as <i>creatio ex nihilo</i> Creation out of nothing
(again, nothing physical). These theories place a heavy demand on any proposed
causal explanation of the universe, since the cause of the beginning of the
universe must transcend time, space, matter, and energy." <span style="color: #202122;"><span style="background-color: white;"><b>[1]</b></span></span></span></span></blockquote><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><a href="https://mytwu-my.sharepoint.com/personal/johnb_twu_ca/Documents/cos.23.03.03.docx#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #202122;"></span></b></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-style: normal; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><o:p></o:p></span></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Christian apologist Gregory Koukl goes even
further, <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="Quote1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US">"I know the Big Bang idea is controversial with
some Christians, but I think that’s because they haven’t realized how well it
fits the Story [the Christian worldview laid out in the Bible], which basically
says the same thing." </span><a href="https://mytwu-my.sharepoint.com/personal/johnb_twu_ca/Documents/cos.23.03.03.docx#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #202122;">[</span></b></span></span></span></span></a>2]</span></blockquote><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><a href="https://mytwu-my.sharepoint.com/personal/johnb_twu_ca/Documents/cos.23.03.03.docx#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #202122;"></span></b></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial;">Of course, since BBC forms an integral part of the
naturalist worldview, Christians must first “baptize” BBC.
This involves insisting that the biblical God is the creator of the universe,
that BBC merely describes <i>how</i> God created, that God <i>can</i> act miraculously at
times, and so on. However, </span></span><span style="font-family: arial;">regarding the history of the physical universe, </span><span style="font-family: arial;">baptized BBC is factually identical to
the naturalist version </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">So, how well does BBC fit the Christian
worldview? Are there really no clashes? Is there no theological price to pay? Let’s examine more closely how the Bible and
BBC compare regarding the past, future, and present structure of the universe.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<h3><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><a name="_Toc129677145"><span lang="EN-US">Conflicts regarding Origins</span></a><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></h3>
<h4><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">1. Astronomical evolution<o:p></o:p></span></span></h4>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Big bang cosmology and Genesis certainly agree
on a few things: the universe began a finite time ago, light was one of the
first things created, and humans the last. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Yet, they differ hugely on the <i>timescale</i>
(billions of years versus thousands of years) and the <i>order</i> of events
(Sun then Earth then vegetation versus Earth then vegetation then Sun). They
differ also regarding the <i>mode</i> of creation. In BBC everything arises
gradually through evolutionary processes, based solely on the operation of
natural laws. According to the Bible, God acted directly at each step, bringing
in something new. And this happened quickly: he spoke, and it was. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Further, they differ in that
BBC assumes natural laws have never changed whereas, according to the Bible, rebellion
against God subjected the entire creation, including astronomical objects, to distortion
and decay, effecting even natural laws. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial;">To harmonize the Bible with BBC one could
simply re-interpret Genesis 1 (and Ex. 20:11; 31:17), treating the creation days as merely a literary
device (e.g., the framework hypothesis or analogical days) conveying
theological rather than historical truth, and re-interpret those biblical
texts speaking of the universal effect of sin (e.g., Isa. 65:17, 2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1; Heb. 12:26-27)</span></span><span style="font-family: arial;">.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">This may seem like a small price to pay to
harmonize the Bible with modern cosmology. Unfortunately, this introduces
the hermeneutical principle that perceived scientific truths should control our
reading of Scripture. Once that hermeneutic is granted legitimacy, it becomes
difficult to restrain.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<h4><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">2. Geological evolution<o:p></o:p></span></span></h4>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">One could stop here, adopting an old
universe/young earth position. This, however, is rarely done. Having accepted mainstream
astronomy, why not likewise accept mainstream geology? Both are based on the
same naturalist presuppositions. If the naturalist picture of the history of
stars and planets is deemed reliable, why not also the naturalist picture of the history of
planet Earth? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Consequently, BBC-accepting Christians generally
accept also mainstream geology as giving a reliable account of earth history. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">But now the cost is much higher. Mainstream
geology claims fossil evidence for pain, suffering, predation, disease,
earthquakes, and the like, millions of years before man. Such natural evil
could therefore not be due to Adam’s Fall, but must be part of God’s initial “very good”
creation. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US">Much else in Genesis now becomes implausible. Thus
William Craig considers Genesis 1-11 to be “mytho-history”, having “fantastic
elements” that are “palpably false” if taken to be literally true, including
the ideas that God created the world in six days, that there was a snake that could talk, that there were actual cherubim with
a flaming sword, that Noah’s flood was
global, that linguistic diversity can be traced back to the Tower of Babel, and that the
earth is only thousands of years old.[3]</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Ironically, Craig’s stress on God’s
transcendence, needed for his cosmological argument, aids his mythologizing of
Genesis: <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="Quote1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US" style="background: rgb(252, 252, 252);"></span></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US" style="background: rgb(252, 252, 252);">"If Genesis 1–11
functions as mytho-history, then these chapters need not be read literally. The
accounts of the origin and Fall of man are clearly metaphorical or figurative
in nature, featuring as they do an anthropomorphic deity incompatible with the
transcendent God of the creation account." [4</span><span style="background-color: #fcfcfc;">]</span></span></blockquote><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US" style="background: rgb(252, 252, 252);"></span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">The greatest problem, however, is mainstream
geology’s placing the existence of humans, or human-look-a-likes, more than a
million years ago, as primitive cave-dwellers, lacking language skills. This is hard
to square with the biblical account of Adam and his fall into sin. The biblical
Adam fits does not fit plausibly within naturalist geology. Hence, the proper Christian reproach is to rebuild geology, taking due account of biblical history.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<h4><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">3. Biological Evolution<o:p></o:p></span></span></h4>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">This brings us to the next logical step. Having
accepted mainstream astronomy and geology, why not also mainstream biology? <span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">If mainstream
science is right about the ages of things, why should it not also be right
about the </span>evolutionary origin<span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;"> of things? </span><span style="background: white;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Most Christians biologists are
evolutionists. They consider the evidence for evolution overwhelming. So does
theologian Bruce Waltke, who said,<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="Quote1"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US">“</span><em><span lang="EN-US" style="font-style: normal;">if the data is
overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a
cult…some odd group that is not really interacting with the world...To deny
scientific reality would be to deny the truth of God in the world. For us as
Christians, this would serve as our spiritual death because we would not be loving
God with all of our minds. It would also be our spiritual death in witness to
the world because we would not be seen as credible..</span></em><span lang="EN-US">."<span style="color: #202122;"><span style="background-color: white;"><b> </b>[5]</span></span></span></span></blockquote><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><a href="https://mytwu-my.sharepoint.com/personal/johnb_twu_ca/Documents/cos.23.03.03.docx#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn5;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #202122;"></span></b></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US">Where does that leave Adam? Adam has been
variously considered as a neo-lithic farmer, a tribal chief, a representative
human, the first <i>homo sapien</i>, or a member of an even earlier hominid
species. He is viewed as either fully created, physically evolved with a
created soul, or fully evolved. Craig takes Adam and Eve to be two evolved
members of Heidelberg Man, in whom God implanted rational souls at least
750,000 years ago.[6]</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US">Given the difficulty of fitting the
biblical Adam into mainstream science, many theologians now deny his actual existence.
Theologian Peter Enns considers Adam to be merely a literary figure.[7]</span><span lang="EN-US"> So does theologian John Schneider, who believes that humans were
never morally upright, that death is not due to sin, and that Christ’s atonement was
not a payment for human sin. Blaming evolution (and thus implicating God, who drives evolution)
for making humans selfish and sinful, he ends up with a universalism where all
humans are saved.[8] Clearly, major theological matters are now at stake; this has become a salvation issue .</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Few Christians may want to go that far. Yet
once we start adapting the Bible to mainstream science the stopping point becomes
arbitrary, as is reflected in the wide spectrum of views on origins among
Christians.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<h3><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><a name="_Toc129677146"><span lang="EN-US">The Big Bang and Heaven</span></a><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">The Bible depicts heaven as a physical place created
directly by God, in time and space, and containing angels, God’s throne, Christ
in his human flesh, the departed souls of saints, etc. Normally invisible to
us, <span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">h</span>eaven
seems to be a three-dimensional subspace embedded in a larger-dimensional space
containing also the celestial cosmos. It may well have its own natural laws. Yet
heaven is closely linked to Earth, where heavenly agents can cause physical effects.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">This heaven is hard to reconcile with
modern cosmology, which assumes there is no space or time beyond our physical
universe. It considers the celestial universe to be a closed system. It literally
has no place for heaven. It is hard to imagine heaven originating from the big
bang singularity, partaking of any expansion of space, or undergoing any sort
of physical change. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US">Christians upholding big bang cosmology
rarely discuss heaven or angels. When they do, they<span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;"> seem to think of heaven as a vague
spiritual abstraction. </span>Thus, for example, William Craig believes that heaven
is a purely spiritual realm, beyond space-time, inhabited entirely by
non-physical beings, so that even Christ presently has no physical body.[9]</span></span></p>
<h3><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><a name="_Toc129677147"><span lang="EN-US">The Big Bang and the Future</span></a><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial;">The contrast between big bang cosmology and
Christianity is most stark regarding the future. M</span></span><span style="font-family: arial;">odern cosmology predicts the
eventual extinction of all life in the universe, whether by freezing, frying,
or the “big rip”. Further, modern biology asserts that dead is dead; there
can be no resurrection of dead individuals.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Against such despair, the central hope of
Christianity is the impending return of Christ, the resurrection of the dead,
the Last Judgment, and life everlasting in a renewed heaven and a renewed earth. These
essentials of Christianity cannot be compromised by any Christian worthy of the
name. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US">Hence, many Christian believers in Big Bang origins will reject Big Bang eschatology. For example, William
Craig [10],</span><span lang="EN-US"> as well as physicist turned-theologians John Polkinghorne [11]</span><span lang="EN-US"> <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>and Robert Russell [12],</span><span lang="EN-US"> all profess that Christian hope for a personal, as well as a cosmic
resurrection must be grounded upon God and His mercy rather than in science. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">To justify their rejection of Big Bang
eschatology, they all note that God’s sovereignty enables him to change natural
laws or personally intervene whenever he wishes, invalidating scientific predictions based
on uniformity assumptions. Therefore, they urge, we should trust the Bible about God’s future eschatological
acts, rather than the predictions of mainstream science.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Such a Bible-first epistemology is
commendable. Yet it is highly inconsistent with their belief, following
mainstream science, that Gen.1-11 is largely mythical, or “palpably false”, to use
Craig’s words. If we can trust God’s word about the future, why not also about
the past? If God’s radical actions in nature can nullify scientific extrapolations
into the future, why not apply the same limits to scientific extrapolations into the past?<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">The cosmic reconciliation will involve much <i>continuity,
</i>in that the earth and heavenly bodies will not be destroyed but renewed. But
also there will be also d<i>iscontinuity</i>, in that the renewed cosmos will likely not be
subject to physical decay. Russell speculates that the natural laws may be modified,
so that thermodynamics may be included only to the extent that it contributes
to natural good, but not to natural evil.[13]</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">Russell’s proposal regarding future thermodynamics is remarkably
similar to the modified thermodynamics suggested by some creationists as
applying to the initial “very good” creation before its distortion due to sin. Indeed,
the biblical eschatological terms of “renewal”, “redemption”, “reconciliation” all
imply a restoration back to an <i>original good state</i>. It seems that the
entire cosmos was adversely affected by sin, from which it will be
cleansed and recreated into a new heaven and earth (e.g., Rom.8:18-25, 2
Peter 3: 5-13).[14]</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">Finally, Russell does not question that this transition will
take place very rapidly: after Christ’s return but </span><span lang="EN-US">before
the new Jerusalem comes down from heaven. The apostle John's vision of the new heavens (Rev.
21:1-2) suggests that the cosmos will be instantly transformed so that
renewed galaxies billions of light-years away will be immediately visible to an
observer on the renewed earth. Just like in the initial creation, where God
spoke “<i>and it was so</i>”. If distant starlight is not a problem in the
renewed cosmos, why should it be a problem in the original cosmos?<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<h3><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><a name="_Toc129677148"><span lang="EN-US">Conclusion</span></a><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">To sum up, Christians should be wary of embracing Big Bang
cosmology. Although this in itself may involve only small revision of the
Bible, it introduces a science-driven hermeneutic. This opens the door to acceptance
also of geological and biological evolution, leading to the loss of the
biblical Adam, and raising numerous weighty theological problems.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">It is hard to square modern cosmology with the existence of
heaven as a physical place in space and time that interacts with the visible
cosmos. </span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial;">Most importantly, Christians must certainly break with Big Bang cosmology regarding its future predictions, which rule out a future restored
cosmos and our bodily resurrection. </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">Therefore, since we must ultimately place
our trust God's written Word, and in the power and faithfulness
of our Lord, regarding our future salvation, should we not likewise apply this same trust to other
matters that God has revealed to us? Christians should develop their own comprehensive cosmology and worldview, rather than trying to placate worldly wisdom.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">If, in the eyes of the world, Christianity is ultimately viewed as foolishness anyway, we may as well be consistent "fools".</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">*****</span></span></p>
<div style="mso-element: footnote-list;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->
<!--[endif]-->
</span><div id="ftn1" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="letter-spacing: -0.2px;">[1]</span> Stephen C. Meyer 1999. “The Return of the God Hypothesis”, </span><em><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; border: 1pt none windowtext; color: black; padding: 0cm;">Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies</span></em><em><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: black;"> </span></em><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: black;">11
(1-2):1-38, p. 8.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn2" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="letter-spacing: -0.2px;">[2]</span> Gregory Koukl 2017. <i>The Story of Reality: How the World Began,
How It Ends, and Everything Important That Happens in Between,</i> Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, p. 51<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn3" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="letter-spacing: -0.2px;">[3]</span> William Lane Craig 2021. <i>In Quest of the Historical Adam</i>. Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, p. 101, 105.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn4" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="letter-spacing: -0.2px;">[4] </span>Ibid.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn5" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US">[5] Quoted in </span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #666463;"> </span><span lang="EN-US">Morris III, H.
2010. “Creation by Evolution”. <i>Acts & Facts</i>. 39 (6): 4-5.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span><span lang="EN-US">[6] </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">William
Lane Craig, “The Historical Adam,” </span><i><span lang="EN-US">First Things</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;"> 316
(October 2021): 47-48. </span></span></p></div>
<div id="ftn7" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="letter-spacing: -0.2px;">]7]</span> Peter Enns 2012. <i>The Evolution of Adam</i>. Brazos Press.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn8" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="letter-spacing: -0.2px;">[8]</span> John R. Schneider, “Recent Genetic Science and Christian Theology
on Human Origins: An ‘Aesthetic Supralapsarianism,’” <i>Perspectives on
Science and Christian Faith</i> 62:3 (Sept 2010): 197.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn9" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="letter-spacing: -0.2px;">[9]</span> https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer , #714
Zygotic Jesus (Jan.11, 2021), accessed Nov.3, 2022.</span></span></p><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span lang="EN-US">[10]</span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"> William Lane Craig, “The End of the World.” Available at:
https://www.
reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/science-theology/the-end-of-the-world/.
Accessed 6 March, 2023.</span></span></p></div>
<div id="ftn11" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="letter-spacing: -0.2px;">[11]</span> John Polkinghorne 2002. <i><span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">The God of Hope and the End of the World</span></i><span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">, Yale University
Press: New Haven, CN.</span><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn12" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="letter-spacing: -0.2px;">[12]</span> Robert J. Russell 2008. <i>Cosmology: From Alpha to Omega</i>.
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.</span></span></p><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span><span lang="EN-US">[13]</span></span><span> Russell, </span><i>op.cit</i><span>. pp. 307-310.</span></span></p></div>
<div id="ftn14" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span style="letter-spacing: -0.2px;">[14]</span> <span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">See,
for example Cornelis Venema 2000. <i>The Promise of the Future, </i>Edinburgh:
Banner of Truth, ch.13<i>.</i></span><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" /></span>
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>john bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-86495923450390230612023-03-21T09:19:00.001-07:002023-04-01T16:30:07.727-07:00The Importance of Cosmology<p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Cosmology is the most important subject in
the world.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Why? Because it is the story of the world: its origin, structure, purpose, and destiny. As people in that world,
its story necessarily forms the background for our own personal story. It affects our deepest beliefs, values, and hopes. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><a name='more'></a>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Our cosmology forms the basis for our response
to the most fundamental questions regarding our existence. Our cosmological
beliefs shape our morality, religion, and culture. Our cosmology is closely linked to our
worldview.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><b>Naturalist Cosmology</b></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Big Bang cosmology is the standard cosmology in our modern society. It is currently embraced by most Western scientists and scholars, and is taught at most schools and universities.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">According to Big Bang cosmology, the universe began billions of years ago with the explosion (the “big bang”) of a highly compressed ball of energy-matter. Its subsequent expansion and evolution saw the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets. On planet Earth simple life arose, which eventually evolved into higher forms of life, including humans. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Big Bang cosmology aims to explain everything solely in terms of natural laws. It is claimed to be fully scientific, relying only on observation and reason, and banning divine revelation and miracles.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">As such, Big Bang cosmology presents a vital background story for naturalism, forming its creation myth. Naturalism holds that only the physical universe exists, with no God, no heavenly realm, no absolute morals, and no purpose. The universe, and all that it contains, is viewed as a huge accident. Humans, the chance products of evolution, have no purpose in life, and cease to exist at death. Morality and religion are merely human inventions. Eventually, all life will be destroyed as the universe either collapses into a Big Crunch or expands into a Big Freeze.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><b>Christian Cosmology</b></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">In stark contrast, Christian cosmology is centered on the everlasting, almighty, and all-knowing triune God of the Bible. </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span>The ultimate purpose for which everything was created was to reveal and share God's magnificent glory (“<i>the heavens declare the glory of God</i>”, Ps.19:1), especially through the work of the Son, Jesus Christ. </span><span>Accordingly, before creation, God the Father prepared his Grand Plan for the universe, encompassing </span><i>all things</i><span> in heaven and earth, which, in the fulness of time, will all be united in Christ (Eph.1: 3-11).</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Although this creation is planned by God the Father, it came about through Christ, by whom,<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="Quote1"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"></span></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">"all things were created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible...all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together" (Col. 1:16-17).</span></blockquote><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><o:p></o:p></span><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial;">Christ also "<i>upholds the universe by the word of his power</i>" (Heb.1:3). <o:p></o:p></span></span><span style="font-family: arial;">Without his continuous word of power the universe would instantly cease to exist.</span><span style="font-family: arial;"> Christ providentially guides the universe throughout history to ensure that his Father's all-encompassing Plan is completely fulfilled. Nothing can happen without God's will. </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial;">The prime distinguishing structural feature of a Christian cosmology is its two-fold nature: the created cosmos includes not only our visible universe but also heaven. Heaven is a parallel physical realm containing, among other things, God's throne, angels that can interact with our visible world, and the souls of departed saints. God's heavenly throne, </span></span></span><span style="font-family: arial;">from which he rules his cosmos,</span><span style="font-family: arial;"> forms the focal point of the universe.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial;">God created this two-fold universe out of nothing a few thousand years ago.</span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span><span style="font-family: arial;">On earth, Adam and Eve were created in God's image, to serve and glorify Him. The original creation was very good, containing no sin or evil. </span></span><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial;">Unhappily, Satan, an angel who rebelled against God, caused Adam to fall into sin. Consequently, all humans, as Adam's offspring, transgress God's moral laws. Sin and evil now distort the entire universe. </span></span><span style="font-family: arial;">Happily, humans can be redeemed through the gracious work of Christ. At the Day of Judgment, Christ will cleanse the entire universe from evil, restoring both heaven and earth. O</span><span style="font-family: arial;">n a renewed earth free from sin and corruption, t</span><span style="font-family: arial;">he transformed believers will rule with Christ, who </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #001320; font-family: arial;">was given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18).</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: arial;">Thus, Christian cosmology is very much Christ-centered: Christ </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: arial;">is the creator, sustainer, incarnated redeemer,
judge (2 Cor. 5:10), and ultimate ruler of the entire universe.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal">
</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span>The present state of the universe, containing
so much pain and misery, is clearly not the best of all possible worlds. Yet,
since God is perfectly wise, we can be assured that the full story of the
universe is the best possible story. It is the most perfect expression of our wondrous
God, glorifying his perfect power, holiness, justice, mercy, and love. And it will culminate in the best possible world, at least for those who love God
and long to share in his glory.</span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b>Cosmology and Apologetics</b></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">The central gospel message is: believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins, and obtain eternal life. Such a message seems entirely implausible to someone who's worldview denies the existence of God, moral absolutes, moral accountability, miracles, and life after death. If the universe has no meaning and all religions are merely human inventions, then Christianity can be no more than wishful thinking.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Hence, to make the case for Christianity, we must show that Christianity consists of more than just a few historical claims and moral rules. Christianity has its own comprehensive worldview, with its own epistemology, values, and cosmology. </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Since becoming a Christian involves a drastic change of worldview, we must also show why Christianity is superior to alternative worldviews such as naturalism or post-modernity. </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: arial;">An opposing worldview is best challenged by addressing the cosmology forming that worldview's background story. Hence, in our current society, we should critique</span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"> Big Bang cosmology. Consider some of its limitations:</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;">1. Big Bang cosmology is largely based on <i>unverified assumptions</i>, such as the uniformity of natural laws, </span><span style="font-family: arial;">the supposed homogeneity of the universe, t</span><span style="font-family: arial;">he non-existence of supernatural agents and divine revelation, and so on. </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span>2. Cosmology in general is plagued with </span><i>empirical under-determination, </i><span>in that we can always construct many different models to explain the same astronomical observations. For example, there can be no scientific disproof of the notion that God created the universe instantaneously, light rays and all, close to its present form, 10,000 years ago.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">3. Big Bang cosmology has many <i>scientific problems</i>. It repeatedly had to be patched up by introducing esoteric, highly speculative notions such as <i>inflation</i>, <i>dark matter</i>, and <i>dark energy</i>, none of which have ever been observed in the lab. Even with these fudge factors in place, many puzzles remain. For example, galaxy formation theories fail to account for the early existence of huge mature-looking galaxies very shortly after the alleged Big Bang.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">4. Finally, Big Bang cosmology has serious <i>explanatory shortcomings</i>. It fails to provide a plausible explanation for the origin of life, consciousness, mind, or free will. It has no place for absolutes in morality or rationality. It claims to be scientific, but can account for neither the values or rationale needed to do science, nor for scientists as functioning human beings. Big Bang cosmology is inherently materialistic. Yet, the rational defense of materialism is ultimately self-refuting since any argument for materialism implies the existence of conscious agents, rational norms, free will, and the like, all of which materialism denies.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">In sum, to make the Christian gospel plausible to contemporary society, we should deconstruct its worldview by critiquing its underlying cosmology, and replace it with a comprehensive Christian alternative.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">*****</span></p>john bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-75358440427954338012022-12-08T10:23:00.001-08:002023-03-03T08:40:32.108-08:00Science, Space, and Time<p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><span style="background: white; color: #222222;">What does
science tell us about the nature of time and space? It is widely claimed that,
in relativistic physics, </span>space and time are intertwined in a
four-dimensional space-time block universe, where all times co-exist eternally.
This seems to challenge the common-sense presentist view of time, where only
the present instant exists, moving from a no longer existing past to a
yet-to-exist future. How well established is the block universe with its static
time?</span></p><a name='more'></a>
<h3><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Absolute space and time<o:p></o:p></span></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Classical physics is based on Isaac Newton's notions
of <i>absolute</i> space and time, which exist independently of each
other. Newton held that they did not exist by themselves but depended on God's
omnipresence and eternality. There is a universal clock, a universal
"now," so that each location in space follows the same absolute
time. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Absolute space and time accorded well with the notion of
dynamic time or presentism, where only the present moment exists. Absolute
space provided a preferred frame of reference, a God's view of reality,
defining position and motion. This ensured an objective ordering of events (<i>absolute
simultaneity</i>) independent of an observer's position or motion.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Empirically, Newton defined absolute space in terms of a reference frame in which Newton's laws of motion held (called an "inertial frame"). In such a frame the Earth's annual revolution about the Sun, as well as its daily rotation, were deemed to reflect absolute motion. Given, however, that all we can ever observe is relative motion, this raised the question of whether the laws of motion could be reformulated to apply to other conceptions of absolute space, such as, for example, one upholding a stationary Earth.</span></p>
<h3><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Relativity, space, and time<o:p></o:p></span></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Einstein's theory of special relativity, on the other hand,
stressed <i>relative</i> motion between different observers. It
assumed that no observer is privileged but that all have equal standing. Hence,
there is no longer an absolute frame of reference. Further, two observers
moving relative to one another could view the same set of events in different
sequences, so that an event that is past for one observer may be future
for another observer. Consequently, absolute simultaneity (where a set of events has the same absolute order for all observers) is replaced with <i>relative</i> simultaneity
and a universal "now" is replaced with a different local time
for every observer.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In the most popular interpretation of special relativity,
space and time are intertwined into a four-dimensional space-time block
universe where past, present, and future times all co-exist eternally. This static
view of time (eternalism) opposes the dynamic time of presentism, where only
the present time exists. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Our strong commonsense experience of the flow of time is
then reduced to a mere delusion. As Einstein himself said, "<i>To us
believing physicists the distinction between past, present, and future has only
the significance of a stubborn illusion</i>."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Special relativity is somewhat simplistic since it ignores
gravity. Einstein's theory of general relativity generalizes special relativity
to include gravity. General relativity postulates that gravity is exhibited by
warping 4-d space-time so that both space and time are distorted by massive
objects. General relativity, too, is commonly viewed as refuting
presentism. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">There are, however, several ways in which special and
general relativity can be reconciled with presentism. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<h4><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><i>1. Metaphysically preferred frames</i><o:p></o:p></span></h4>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><span style="background: white;">Even in theories where there is relative simultaneity, one is
still free to imagine there is a sort of "metaphysically preferred
frame" whose definition of simultaneity is "true" while the
others are "false" in a metaphysical sense. One must then accept that
no possible physical experiment could allow us to empirically prove (or
disprove) that preferred frame to be "true". S</span>uch a preferred
frame could, however, be chosen on the basis of philosophical or theological
considerations.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Thus, even if relativity treats all potential observers
equally, we could still choose, for example, a stationary observer in
Greenwich, UK, to have preferred status. We could then define the absolute
reference frame to be centered on Greenwich and define Greenwich time as the
absolute time. Clocks associated with other observers could then be
synchronized with Greenwich time so that a universal "now" is
associated with Greenwich time. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<h4><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><i>2. Rewrite relativity in absolute terms</i><o:p></o:p></span></h4>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Another approach is to rewrite special and general
relativity in terms of absolute time. For example, the
"Neo-Lorentzian" version of special relativity retains absolute
(3-dimensional) space plus an absolute time independent of space. Similarly,
absolute time can be retained in general relativity by using a Hamiltonian
version of general relativity.[1] Such absolute versions of relativity are observationally indistinguishable
from the space-time block universe view. As in the previous case, however, the
absolute frame must generally be chosen on the basis of metaphysical, rather than empirical, considerations.<o:p></o:p></span></p><h4><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><i>3. Instrumentalism</i><o:p></o:p></span></h4><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background: white; font-size: large;">One could also contend that, since we can't prove any scientific theory to be true, we should just treat it as a useful fiction. Scientific theories, such as special and general relativity and quantum mechanics can be viewed simply as handy tools that enable us to establish relations among observations and to make predictions, but tell us nothing about reality beyond the observations, such as the nature of time.</span></span></p>
<h4><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Science and time in general<o:p></o:p></span></h4>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><span style="background: white;">In quantum mechanics, a measurement
performed on one of two entangled particles has an instantaneous effect on the
other particle, even when they are far apart. The two events are simultaneous,
no matter how fast any observer is moving. This supports an
absolute simultaneity, with an objective flow of time.[2</span><a href="https://mytwu-my.sharepoint.com/personal/johnb_twu_ca/Documents/Documents/cos.22.8.12.docx#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="background: white; color: black;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><span style="background: white;">General relativity, which deals with the very large (e.g.,
stars and galaxies), and quantum mechanics, which deals with the very small
(e.g., atoms), are two of the most successful theories in modern physics. Yet,
they are very difficult to reconcile, suggesting that at least one of these
theories is incomplete. Currently, there is as yet no widely accepted theory of
quantum gravity. One theory of quantum gravity proposed by Petr Horava retains the
notion of absolute time.[3</span><a href="https://mytwu-my.sharepoint.com/personal/johnb_twu_ca/Documents/Documents/cos.22.8.12.docx#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="background: white; color: black;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style="background: white;"> There seems no
reason to doubt that any future theory of quantum gravity could be interpreted
within a framework of absolute time.</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<h4><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial; font-size: large; font-weight: 400;">Other scientific disciplines, such as biology and geology, seem more conducive to dynamic time than to static time.</span></h4><h4><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></h4><h4><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Conclusions</span></h4>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background: white; font-size: large;">1. We should note that a scientific theory such as general relativity or quantum mechanics, no matter how successful, is just a mathematical model representing a very limited aspect of reality. We must be careful not to commit the <i style="background-color: transparent;">fallacy of misplaced concreteness</i>, where our abstract model becomes more real than our concrete experienced reality, upon which the model is based. Thus occurs, for example, when we allow relativity to dismiss the intuitive flow of time we all experience as a mere illusion. After all, science should ultimately serve to <i style="background-color: transparent;">explain</i> our observations, not to explain them <i style="background-color: transparent;">away</i>.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial; font-size: large;">2. Empirically, physics can deal only with relative motion and position. This leaves one free to choose an absolute frame of reference based on metaphysical or theological considerations. Thus, for example, there can be no scientific objection to choosing, say, the earth as an absolute frame of reference and earth time as universal time, if one so wished.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><span style="background: white;">3. Although some parts of physics, such as special and
general relativity may seem more conducive to eternalism, other parts, such as
quantum mechanics, accord better with presentism. Yet all of physics can be
interpreted within either eternalism or presentism. Thus I conclude that
physics by itself does not conclusively support any particular theory of time.
In short, it offers no compelling grounds for ruling out presentism, or dynamic
time, as a viable view of time.</span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background: white; font-size: large;">4. More generally, we must be wary of extracting metaphysical conclusions from any physical theory. Often these merely reflect the metaphysical assumptions upon which the theory is based. </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background: white;">5. Finally, s</span></span><span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial;">cientific theories, even if they could be proven to be true for the entire observed physical universe, do not extend to the unseen heavenly realm, which seems to have its own laws. Hence, human science, when unaided by divine revelation, is incapable of discovering the true spatial and temporal nature of the universe as a whole.</span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="background: white; font-size: large;">*****</span></span></p>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><!--[endif]-->
</span><div id="ftn1">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><span style="letter-spacing: -0.2px;">[1]</span> J. Brian Pitts 2004, “Some Thoughts on Relativity and the Flow of Time:
Einstein’s Equations given Absolute Simultaneity”. Preprint. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2760/.
Accessed Nov.16, 2022.</span></p><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">[2] <span style="background: white;">see Jeffrey
Koperski 2015, </span><i>The
Physics of Theism</i><span style="background: white;">. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. p.122.</span></span></p></div>
<div id="ftn3">
<p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><span style="letter-spacing: -0.2px;">[3]</span> <span style="background: white;">Koperski, <i>op. cit</i>.,
p.134.</span></span></p><div><div id="ftn3">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>john bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-37594467804525621782022-10-04T09:46:00.000-07:002022-10-04T09:46:06.853-07:00God, Creation, and Space<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span><span style="font-family: arial;">Some Christian apologists (e.g., William Lane Craig, Hugh Ross) contend that it is scientifically proven that the physical universe began from an infinitely dense point of space (the so-called Big Bang <i>singularity</i>), which marked the creation also of space and time. They contend that, if </span></span><span style="font-family: arial;">space and time did not exist before creation, then the universe must have been created by a cause transcending space and time, which they equate with God. </span></span></p><a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: justify;">Did space and time really begin to exist along with the physical universe? or did our physical universe begin within a pre-existing space and time? </div></span><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In a previous post, we argued that God and time existed before the creation of the physical universe. In this post, we shall consider what the Bible says about God, creation, and space.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><b>What is Space?</b></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span><span style="font-family: arial;">What do we mean by "space"? Very roughly, "space" forms the background for reality. Space makes it possible for things to exist. </span></span><span style="font-family: arial;">Generally, f</span><span style="font-family: arial;">or something to "exist" means that it can be found <i>somewhere,</i> at some location within space. Even immaterial spirits, who may lack any spatial <i>extension</i>, still have a spatial <i>location</i>. </span><span style="font-family: arial;"> </span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><span>Since unicorns haven't been as yet found anywhere in the real physical world, we assume they don't presently "exist." On the other hand, the </span><i>idea</i><span> of a unicorn exists in my mind, which is located spatially within my brain.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Sp</span><span style="font-family: arial;">ace can be viewed as a "container" in which objects can exist at different "locations". Space can also be seen as a set of relations between different existing objects. </span><span style="font-family: arial;">Space enables us to separate objects, and to disti</span><span style="font-family: arial;">nguish between them.</span></span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><b>Space in the Bible</b></span></span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What does the Bible say about space and creation? The Bible relates:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><i>In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.</i> (Gen.1:1-2)</span></blockquote><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: arial;">The first creative act of Day 1 was thus the creation of heaven and a watery earth, from which </span><span style="font-family: arial;">the entire physical universe was later formed (Gen.1: 6-19). A few points of cosmological interest can be noted.</span></span></p><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><b><i>1. A finite bounded physical universe</i></b></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: arial;">First, the waters covering the earth are said to have a "face" or surface. The initial physical universe could thus be viewed as a finite, bounded volume of matter. Further, since darkness and the Spirit of God are found "</span><i style="font-family: arial;">over the face</i><span style="font-family: arial;">", beyond the created matter, the finite physical universe seems to be embedded within a larger space, empty of material things.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><b><i>2. The heavenly realm</i></b></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span>Second, in addition to the physical universe, God created also a heavenly realm. The Bible speaks about "heaven" or the "heavens" (Hebrew <i>shamayim</i>, which is always plural) in three different senses. Heaven can refer to the atmosphere, in which birds fly (Gen.1:20), the celestial realm of the stars (Gen.1:14), or to the heaven of heavens, where God's throne is found (Ps.103:19). Since the first two senses of heaven are situated within the "expanse" formed on Day 2, the "heavens" of Day 1 probably refers primarily to the heaven of heaven, which was created by God (Ps.33:6). </span></span><span style="font-family: arial;">Hereafter, all references to "heaven" refer to heaven in the latter sense.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><span>William Craig believes that heaven is a purely spiritual realm, beyond space-time, inhabited entirely by non-physical beings. Thus <a href="https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/zygotic-jesus?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=READ%20DR.%20CRAIG&utm_campaign=Weekly%20Update%20-%20Jan%20Wk%202" target="_blank">he contends</a> that Christ presently has no physical body. However</span>, Craig gives no grounds for why heaven could not be another space-time realm beyond that of our physical universe.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Indeed, the biblical heaven is no mere spiritual abstraction but has a concrete spatial aspect. Jesus called heaven a "<i>place</i>" (John 14:2). The Bible describes it as being above the earth, a place from which God looks down onto the earth (Ps.14:2) and to which Christ ascends (Acts 1).</span><span style="font-family: arial;"> Michael and his angels fight in heaven against Satan and his angels, who were defeated, and "<i>neither was their place found anymore in heaven</i>" (Rev.12:7-8). Angels, even as spirits, occupy places in heaven (or earth), and can be displaced. Since angels and demons can act effectively within our physical world, it is evident that not all physical events can be explained in terms of purely physical laws.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><span>The biblical evidence supports the notion that Christ currently </span><i>does</i><span> have a physical body. In his ascension, he is taken up into heaven in bodily form (Acts 1:9-11). As the first fruits of the resurrection, Christ had received a permanent glorified body (1 Cor. 15: 23). Also, Christ's human body seems to be a necessary part of his human nature (Hebr. 2:17). </span></span></p><p></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">Moreover, heaven contains other physical things, such as the human bodies of Enoch and Elijah, God's temple containing the ark of the covenant (Rev.11:19), a sea of glass, harps, linen clothing, etc. The heavenly visions of John picture God seated on a throne surrounded by angels, elders, and saints.</span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-family: arial;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span>Normally, heaven is invisible to man. However, it is sometimes opened (see, for example, II Kings 6:17, Eze.1:1, Mark 1:10, John 1:51), so that man may catch a glimpse of heavenly things. </span></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span>Heaven, although invisible, is nearby, like a universe parallel to our physical universe. </span></span><span style="font-family: arial;">How heaven intersects with our physical universe is at present a mystery. P</span><span style="font-family: arial;">erhaps both are embedded within a larger, multi-dimensional space. </span></div></span></span><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">God and Space</span></b></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">We are told that God made heaven and earth, and all that is in them, but <i>not</i> that He created the larger space <i>containing</i> heaven and earth. This leaves open the possibility that space existed already before the creation of our universe.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><i><b>1. Omnipresence and universal time</b></i></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: arial;">This raises the question of how God relates to space. The Bible affirms that God is not a spaceless abstraction but, rather, a triune, personal, living God who is fully present everywhere at the same time (his <i>omnipresence</i>). God fills heaven and earth (Jer. 23: 24); in him, we live and have our being (Acts 17:27-28). In fact, n</span><span style="font-family: arial;">ot even earth and heaven can contain God (1 Kings 8:27). God's presence extends beyond the universe He has created, and is without spatial limits (his <i>immensity</i>).</span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">God's omnipresence is intimately related to his knowledge of what is happening everywhere (part of his <i>omniscience</i>) and his ability to control all that is happening (his <i>omnipotence</i>). Further, since God is fully present everywhere at once, and since only the present moment of time exists, each location within the universe exists at the same moment of time. There is thus a universal time throughout creation: earth, the rest of the physical universe, and heaven all follow the same universal time.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><i><b>2. God's throne at the center</b></i></span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: arial;">However, although God is omnipresent, he does not manifest Himself everywhere in the same manner. God the Father dwells more fully "<i>in heaven</i>" (</span><span style="font-family: arial;">Matt.6:9), </span><span style="font-family: arial;">seated on His throne (Psalm 47:8), from where He sometimes visits the earth (e.g., Gen.11:5-7). </span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Since God rules and judges from his heavenly throne, this forms the central position, the ultimate standard of rest, for the universe. Although God's throne is not necessarily at the exact geometric center of the universe, it is the prime focal point for the theocentric universe. In the next life, God's throne will be moved from heaven to the New Jerusalem, situated on the transformed earth. </span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><i><b>3. God's own space?</b></i></span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><span><span><span>Where did God reside before he created our universe? Since the Bible does not directly address this question, theologians can only speculate. Some theologians</span><span> </span><span>have conjectured that God has always lived in His own, uncreated, higher-dimensional space </span></span></span><span>(see Jan Muis, 2021 "Our Spatial Reality and God", HTS </span><i>Theological Studies</i><span> 77(3), a6890)</span><span><span>. </span></span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><span>For example, the Dutch theologian Luco van den Brom<span> (</span></span><span>Van den Brom, L.J. 1991 "Interpreting the Doctrine of Creation" in Vincent Brummer (ed.), </span><i>Interpreting the Universe as Creation.</i><span> Kampen, The Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1991) proposes</span><span> that God exists spatially in his own more-dimensional, perhaps even infinite-dimensional, universe. He reasons that, if God has existed from everlasting, and if God is spirit, then God's place, the spiritual world, must have always existed. Consequently, Van den Brom suggests that, in his act of creation, God made room for the created 3-d physical world and the created heaven3 in his own higher dimensional world.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><b>Some Cautions</b></span></p><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--></span><div id="ftn1"><p class="MsoSubtitle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Although I endorse the notion of a spatial heaven, beyond our three physical dimensions, and of a deeper spatial reality even beyond that, a few words of caution are in order.</span><span style="font-family: arial;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoSubtitle" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">First, any higher dimensions may be qualitatively quite different from those of the 3-d physical world. In these higher dimensions physical laws, such as the limited speed of light, may not apply or may take on very different forms. Nor should these higher dimensions be confused with the extra-spatial dimensions required by, for example, superstring theories in physics, the latter being little more than mathematical abstractions. </span></p></div></div><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a href="https://mytwu-my.sharepoint.com/personal/johnb_twu_ca/Documents/Documents/cos.22.3.14.docx#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><b><span></span></b></span><!--[endif]--></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span><span style="font-family: arial;">Second, o</span></span><span style="font-family: arial;">ur knowledge of God and of the spiritual realm is</span><span style="font-family: arial;"> confined to what God has revealed to us in his Word, which is</span><span style="font-family: arial;"> very limited. </span><span style="font-family: arial;">As finite, fallen humans, we are surely in no position to fully understand God.</span><span style="font-family: arial;"> Hence,</span><span style="font-family: arial;"> we must be careful regarding speculations about God. Certainly in this life, we are constrained to look through a glass darkly. </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><b>Conclusions</b></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">From the biblical evidence, we can draw the following conclusions about time, space, and creation.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">1. Time, and possibly space, existed before the creation of heaven and the physical universe.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">2. The physical universe is finite and bounded, contained within a larger space.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span><span style="font-family: arial;">3. Heaven exists within its own space, </span></span><span style="font-family: arial;">containing physical objects. It is </span><span style="font-family: arial;">parallel to the physical universe, with which it can interact.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">4. The physical universe and heaven both partake of the same universal time.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">5. The focal point of the entire creation is God's heavenly throne, which may serve as the prime reference point in physical and heavenly space.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Current mainstream cosmology, on the other hand, views the physical universe as all that exists, having no edges, center, or preferred position, and where space-time cannot exist in the absence of matter. The scientific evidence regarding these issues shall be examined in a later post.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">*****</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p>john bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-30847241136460230692022-09-15T13:30:00.004-07:002022-09-17T11:07:49.225-07:00God, Creation, and Time<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Did time exist before the creation of the world? Many Christians believe that time was created along with the physical universe, and that there was no time "before" creation. Is this feasible?</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: arial;"></span></span></p><a name='more'></a><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: arial;">First, let's consider the nature of time. What is "time"? Time is closely associated with <i>change</i>. </span><span style="font-family: arial;">We measure the</span><span style="font-family: arial;"> </span><i style="font-family: arial;">passage</i><span style="font-family: arial;"> </span><span style="font-family: arial;">of time by observing</span><span style="font-family: arial;"> </span><span style="font-family: arial;">change<i>, </i></span><span style="font-family: arial;">perhaps physically by means of a clock, the varying position of the sun, or even mentally by our flow of thoughts. </span></span><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: arial;">"Time" is that which makes change possible within that which exists. </span><span style="font-family: arial;">A "moment" of time is how the universe is at one particular time. No change occurs within any individual moment, but only over a succession of moments. </span><span style="font-family: arial;">Time creates moments and orders them. </span><span style="font-family: arial;">Thus, time</span><span style="font-family: arial;"> enables the occurrence of events and processes. A </span><span style="font-family: arial;">world without time is a static frozen world where nothing ever happens. </span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: large;">Creation and Time </span></b></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The Bible, in its very first verse, relates, "<i>In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth</i>". Elsewhere, this beginning is referred to as "<i>the beginning of creation</i>" (Mark 10:6), not necessarily the beginning of time itself.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">If time was created along with the universe, then the universe has <i>always</i> existed, in the sense that at no time did the universe not exist. Indeed, if there was no time before creation then we cannot even speak of anything "before" creation.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: arial;">It seems clear from the Bible, however, that God existed before he created the universe. </span><span style="font-family: arial;">God self-exists, and is the source of all other existence.</span><span style="font-family: arial;"> The Christian notion of creation from nothing (<i>creatio ex nihilo</i>) implies that there was a time when only God existed, whereafter he created the material universe from nothing, other than his Plan and his spoken Word.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: arial;">The Bible consistently presents God as enduring throughout endless years, but unchanged in his being and character:</span><span style="font-family: arial;"> Or,</span></span></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="font-size: large;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="background: white;"></span></span></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><i><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="background: white;">Of old you laid the
foundation of the earth, </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif"><span style="background: white;">and the
heavens are the work of your hands. </span></span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white;">They will perish,
but you will remain; </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white;">they
will all wear out like a garment. </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white;">You will
change them like a robe, and they will pass away, </span></i><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white;"><i>but you are the same, and your years
have no end.</i> </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white;">(Psalm 102:25-27; Hebr.
1:10-12)</span></span></p></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="indent-1" face="system-ui, -apple-system, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Ubuntu, Cantarell, "Noto Sans", sans-serif, Arial" style="background-color: white;"><span class="text Ps-102-27" id="en-ESV-15549" style="font-size: large; position: relative;"></span></span></span></blockquote><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="indent-1" face="system-ui, -apple-system, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Ubuntu, Cantarell, "Noto Sans", sans-serif, Arial" style="background-color: white;"><span class="text Ps-102-27" id="en-ESV-15549" style="font-size: large; position: relative;"></span></span></span><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: arial;">God is the<i> living</i> God, who acts. "</span><span style="font-family: arial;"><i><span style="background-color: white;">But the </span><span class="sc" style="background-color: white; font-variant-caps: small-caps; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;">Lord</span></i><span style="background-color: white;"><i> is the true God; he is the living God and the everlasting King</i>" (Jer. 10:10). </span></span><span style="font-family: arial;">God is not </span><i style="font-family: arial;">timeless</i><span style="font-family: arial;">, in the sense of not being or acting in time, but, rather, </span><span style="font-family: arial;"><i>supra-temporal,</i> in</span><span style="font-family: arial;"> that he </span><span style="font-family: arial;">has no temporal limits. God is fully present always, </span><span style="font-family: arial;">at each and every moment of time.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Moreover, God fully determines what happens at each moment of time, as well as the flow from one moment to the next. </span><span style="font-family: arial;">R.J. Mullins ("The Divine Timemaker",<i> Philosophia Christi</i> 22 (2):211-237) argues that, since God necessarily exists and has attributes like freedom and omnipotence, time could be considered an attribute of God. Time is certainly closely linked to the divine attribute of eternity.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><b>Time Before Creation</b></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">If God has always existed, what did he do before he created the world? The Bible specifically mentions two divine activities done "<i>before the foundation of the world</i>" or "<i>before the ages</i>".</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">1. <i><b>Fellowship among the Trinity</b></i>. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: arial;">"<i>Before the foundation of the world</i>" t</span><span style="font-family: arial;">he Father loved his Son (John 17:24) and glorified him: <i>"</i></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><i>Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory I had with you before the earth existed</i>" (John 17:4). Evidently, b</span><span style="font-family: arial;">efore creation, there was love, glory, and fellowship within the persons of the divine Trinity.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><b><i>2. Establishment of the Grand Plan</i></b>.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Before creation, God prepared his Grand Plan for the universe. </span><span style="font-family: arial;">He chose us, the elect (Eph.1:4; Rev.13:8), entered our names in the Book of Life (Rev.17:8), ordained Christ to redeem </span><span style="font-family: arial;">the elect (1 Peter 1:20), and</span><span style="font-family: arial;"> prepared the Kingdom to be inherited by the elect (Matt.25:34). This detailed plan encompasses <i>all things</i> in heaven and earth, which, in the fulness of time, will all be united in Christ (Eph.1:3-11). N</span><span style="font-family: arial;">othing can happen without God's will. </span><span style="font-family: arial;">God providentially guides the universe throughout history to ensure that his Plan is completely fulfilled. The Plan's</span><span style="font-family: arial;"> ultimate goal is to reveal God's magnificent glory (Ps.19:1; Isa.43:7). </span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><b>Dynamic versus static time</b></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Is the passing of time real, or just an illusion? The common-sense view is that only the present "now" moment of time exists, ever moving from no longer existing past moments to as yet not existing future moments. This view of time is called <i>presentism</i> or <i>dynamic</i> time (also as <i>tensed</i> time or A-theory time). The present exists, the past has passed away, and the future is yet to come. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Some philosophers and physicists (including Einstein) believe that the world is a four-dimensional space-time "block" universe, where the past, present, and future are equally real. The apparent flow of time that we all experience must then be considered just an illusion. This is known as <i>eternalism</i>, <i>static</i> time, <i>tenseless</i> time, or B-theory time.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The Bible, however, seems to reflect the common-sense dynamic view of time. It views history as real, with only the present existing. For example, God says:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><i></i></span></p><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><i>"Behold, the former things have come to pass, and new things I now declare; before they spring forth, I tell you of them." (Isa. 42:9)</i></span></blockquote><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">God is referred to as he "who is, and who was, and who is to come" (Rev. 1:8).</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Presentism entails that time is not relative to the observer, but that there is an absolute, universal time, determined by God's view of things. </span><span style="font-family: arial;">At creation, God freely created the first moment t1 of our physical universe, followed by a succession of moments t2, t3, ... wherein his Plan is actualized. </span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Note that, according to presentism, time travel to the past is impossible since the past no longer exists. We can only travel forward in time, towards the yet-to-be future.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: arial;">If the future does not as yet exist, how can God know the future? </span><span style="font-family: arial;">God does not literally "see" the future. However, God does know </span><span style="font-family: arial;">his established Plan, which fully encompasses the future in all its detail. The Plan can be likened to a book or movie, where each page or frame is analogous to a moment of time. The Plan, </span><span style="font-family: arial;">which God sees as one unified whole,</span><span style="font-family: arial;"> contains the whole potential history of the universe. The Plan, taken as a whole, is analogous to static time, in that it covers all prospective moments of time. </span><span style="font-family: arial;"> Yet t</span><span style="font-family: arial;">he Plan differs from actual history, in that each page of the Plan is merely a divine idea until its actualization makes it a concretely real historical fact. </span><span style="font-family: arial;">In the concrete historical actualization of the Plan, only the current page representing the present has real existence, making history unfold in dynamic time.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><b>Time everlasting</b></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">A basic tenet of the Christian faith, expressed in the Apostle's Creed (as well as the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds), is the belief in "life everlasting", an endless future life in which believers praise God and reign with him forever (Rev.22:5).</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: arial;">The created world has a definite beginning, a finite time ago, but will continue forever, without end. God, on the other hand,</span><span style="font-family: arial;"> exists with a beginningless past and an endless future:</span><span style="font-family: arial;"> "<i>before...ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting, you are God</i>" (Psalm 90:2).</span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Some philosophers have objected to the notion of a beginningless past </span><span style="font-family: arial;">(e.g., William L. Craig (with Quentin Smith) 1993 </span><i style="font-family: arial;">Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology</i><span style="font-family: arial;"> (Oxford: Oxford University Press))</span><span style="font-family: arial;">. The prime objection to a beginningless past, they allege, is that to reach the present moment, an actually infinite number of past moments must then have occurred. This they deem to be impossible. On the other hand, they claim that an endless future merely involves a </span><i style="font-family: arial;">potential</i><span style="font-family: arial;"> infinity, in that the number of passing moments becomes ever larger but always remains finite, never reaching actual infinity. The time between now and any particular future event is always finite, no matter how distant it is.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Yet, one cannot view the future as merely potentially infinite but not actually so. Consider, for example, God's Plan. I</span><span style="font-family: arial;">f God's Plan encompasses the entire future, we could correlate the Plan's first moment t1 with integer 1, the second moment t2 with integer 2, and so on. Then the entire set of positive integers will be contained within the plan, yielding </span><span style="font-family: arial;">an actually infinite set. Thus, if an actually infinite set of moments is to be banned, this applies as much to an endless future as it does to a beginningless past.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: arial;">If we can correlate the positive integers with the moments after creation, why could we not similarly correlate the moments before creation, still existing in God's memory, with the negative numbers? </span><span style="font-family: arial;">It would seem that a beginningless past has the same ontological status as an endless future, at least for God. </span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Many of the alleged contradictions inherent in infinite time seem to stem from applying properties of finite sets to infinite sets. Infinite sets have some properties that may seem to be counter-intuitive to those used to dealing with finite sets. Nevertheless, such properties involve no logical contradictions. </span><span style="font-family: arial;">There is nothing logically or mathematically incoherent about infinite sets; mathematicians use them all the time. For a detailed critique of Craig's arguments against an infinite past, see Wes Morriston ("Beginningless past, endless future, and the actual infinite", <i>Faith and Philosophy</i> 27 (2010): 439-450).</span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: arial;">There is a further problem. Philosophical arguments against a beginningless past conclude only that the past must be finite, without yielding any specific numerical limit. In that case, f</span><span style="font-family: arial;">or any past number of moments N you care to name, you could increase it to, say, (N+1) since (N+1) is also finite. It follows that N clearly has no upper bound. Hence, the present can be reached from </span><i style="font-family: arial;">any</i><span style="font-family: arial;"> past point, no matter how distant. This entails that the past is infinite. This is similar to the negative integers, which as a whole form an infinite set, even though none of them is actually infinite, and even though the distance between any two particular negative numbers is always finite.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: arial;">In short,</span><span style="font-family: arial;"> it seems feasible, at least on logical and mathematical grounds, that time could persist from a beginningless past to an endless future.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><b>Conclusion</b></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In sum, there seem to be good Biblical grounds for viewing time as an attribute of God, in that He fully controls time's flow and content. God uses time to actualize and fulfill His plan. The Bible reflects the common sense view that only the present moment exists. There are no valid logical or mathematical objections to the notion that God persists throughout time from a beginningless past to an endless future.</span></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">*****</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p>john bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-48060639720592444892021-12-21T16:15:00.001-08:002022-08-29T10:09:47.577-07:00Does the Bible Use Phenomenal Language?<p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Does the Bible speak about <i>reality</i> or only about <i>appearances</i>? Sometimes, to avoid conflict with alleged scientific facts, it is claimed that the Bible uses <i>phenomenal</i> (or <i>phenomenological</i>) language, describing things as they appear from our human, earth-bound perspective rather than being factually correct in a more scientific sense.</span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><b>Applying Phenomenal Language</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">An early example of this is found in John Calvin's <i>Commentary on Genesis</i>, in reference to the sun and the moon as "two great lights" (Gen.1:16). According to Calvin, this is factually incorrect since science had proven Saturn to be larger than the moon. However, Calvin excuses this on the ground that Moses had to accommodate his message down to the level of unlearned men, by using the language of how things appear to humans on earth. Factually correct language, Calvin opines, would not have been understood. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">More recently, similar appeals to phenomenal language are often made to defend biblical references to a moving sun against alleged scientific proofs that the earth is actually rotating. The Bible is then defended as simply describing how things <i>appear</i> to a human observer rather than being concerned about absolute motion.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">These examples may seem harmless enough. However, the notion of phenomenal language has been extended to cover further issues. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;">For example, it has been postulated that t</span><span style="font-family: arial;">he creation of stars on Day 4 refers </span><span style="font-family: arial;">not when they were actually <i>made</i>, but</span><span style="font-family: arial;"> when they became <i>visible</i> to an earth-bound observer. Pe</span><span style="font-family: arial;">rhaps, it is said, Day 4 is when distant starlight first reached the earth (John Hartnett, Jason Lisle) or when the earth's atmosphere became transparent to starlight (Hugh Ross, Walter Bradley). Either way, this allows for the creation of stars billions of years before Day 4.</span></span></p><p><span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">The theologian Bernard Ramm (<i>The Christian View of Science and Scripture</i>, 1954, pp.65-73) used the notion of phenomenal Biblical language to argue that the creation of the universe was <i>revealed</i>, rather than produced,<i> </i>in six days. He also believed the flood to be local, only <i>appearing</i> to be global to Noah. In fact, Ramm believed that a phenomenal approach could solve most conflicts between the Bible and mainstream science.</span></span></p><p><span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><b>Appearance and Reality</b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">The appeal to phenomenal language assumes that reality differs from appearance. The implication is that the Bible deals only with appearances, whereas science enables us to learn about the actual reality behind mere appearances. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Can science genuinely give us such superior knowledge?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span>The philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) famously distinguished between the <b>phenomenal</b> (reality as it appears to our senses) and </span><span>the </span><b>noumenal</b><span> (the actual reality behind appearances)</span><span>. He claimed that human science is limited to the phenomenal, and could never attain knowledge of the noumenal. Science is grounded in observations (<i>i.e.</i>, appearances); any attempt to get beyond these must necessarily rely on theoretical assumptions that can never be definitely proven by science.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Only God can discern the reality behind appearances. God's view of things is the way they really are. Hence our only means to attain knowledge of reality is via God's revelation of it to us, particularly in the Bible. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span>The Bible itself never suggests its message is limited to the merely phenomenal, particularly not in Gen.1-11. </span><span>Indeed, Gen.1-11 is written explicitly from God's perspective. </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">We are told, </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">"God made the two great lights...and the stars...and set them in the expanse...And God saw that it was good</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">" (Gen.1:16-18). Since God is omniscient and omnipresent, the events recorded in Gen.1 should refer to actual facts, not merely human appearances. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span>How, then, do we explain the above e</span><span>xamples? These can easily be resolved without resorting to phenome</span><span>nal language. In the first example, the moon is indeed brighter than Saturn in terms of its explicitly stated function, which is "</span><i>to give light upon the earth</i><span>" (Gen.1:15). In the second example, science can only speak of </span><i>relative</i><span> motion. Whether we consider the sun to revolve about a fixed earth, or consider the earth to rotate with respect to a fixed sun, depends solely on what we choose to be our absolute frame of reference. That choice depends entirely on our extra-scientific presuppositions. Hence, the Bible cannot be faulted on scientific grounds for taking the earth as its standard of absolute motion (see my post<a href="http://bylogos.blogspot.com/2011/07/moving-earth.html" target="_blank"> A Moving Earth?</a>).</span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><b>Conclusion</b></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">The notion that the Bible uses phenomenal language is just another form of accommodation. The underlying concern is that the Bible, taken at face value, tells us something that contradicts what we think is true on the basis of extra-biblical considerations. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">In reducing Biblical truth to mere phenomenal appearance, we are in effect elevating fallible human opinion above divine wisdom. Rather, it</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"> should be </span><i style="color: #222222;">vice versa</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">: the Bible presents us with the genuine God's eye view of things, the true account of reality, whereas science deals with mere appearances.</span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Nowhere does the Bible ever suggest that God accommodates His message to humans by dumbing it down, so that it says something that is factually false. On the contrary, it constantly warns us against worldly wisdom, urging us to seek the mind of Christ, as revealed in His Word (cf Rom 12: 2; 2 Cor. 10:3-5), which is truth (John 17:17).</span></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">*****</span></p>john bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-64652860183038374152021-12-08T08:44:00.003-08:002023-08-30T15:59:20.352-07:00Canadian Reformed MPs Approve Pro-LGBT Bill C-4<p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14pt;">How many Canadian Members of Parliament, or Senators, are willing to stand up for Christian values against the pro-homosexual agenda?
NONE. Not a one. Not even the Canadian Reformed MPs Arnold Viersen and Tako
van Popta!</span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt;">Last week, on Dec.
2, 2021, the Canadian House of Commons <a href="https://ici.radio-canada.ca/rci/en/news/1844211/mps-unanimously-approve-updated-legislation-to-ban-conversion-therapy" target="_blank">voted <b>unanimously</b> to
pass</a>, without debate, Bill C-4. Yesterday (Dec. 7, 2021) the Senate likewise voted it through </span></span><b style="color: #333333; font-family: arial; font-size: 18.6667px;">unanimously</b><span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial; font-size: 18.6667px;">, without debate. Bill C-4 now becomes law.</span></p><p><span lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt;">This bill makes it illegal to help a
gender-confused person behave according to their biological sex or to help a
homosexual person resist same-sex attraction.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">What is Bill C-4?</span></b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt;">Bill C-4 defines
"Conversion therapy" as "</span><i style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt;">any practice, treatment, or
service" designed to change a person's orientation to heterosexual, a
person's gender identity to cisgender</i><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt;"> (i.e., normal), </span><i style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt;">a
person's gender expression to conform to their biological sex, or to "repress
or reduce" a person's homosexual behaviour, non-cis gender identity, or
gender expression not conforming to their biological sex."</i><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt;"> (see
the </span><b style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt;">Appendix</b><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt;"> below for the full text).</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #303030; font-size: 14pt;">This bill will make
it a criminal offense to help an LGBT person convert to a Biblical lifestyle. </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt;">Moreover, those merely
exploring or developing a person's identity may not assume that any
particular sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression is to
be preferred over another. Thus, for example, LGBT behaviour may not be condemned
as sinful.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #303030; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Bill C-4 is stronger
than a previous version (Bill C-6), which did not prevent </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; font-size: 14pt;">consenting adults from receiving help
from their pastor or counselour to reduce LGBT behaviour. Bill C-4 now bans even that.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Anyone providing
"conversion therapy" is liable to up to 5 years imprisonment.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: #303030; font-size: 14pt;">It is especially
noteworthy that Bill C-4 does not ban “conversion therapy” as such, but only </span><b style="color: #303030; font-size: 14pt;">from</b><span style="color: #303030; font-size: 14pt;"> LGBT
to normal - </span><b style="color: #303030; font-size: 14pt;">not</b><span style="color: #303030; font-size: 14pt;"> from normal </span><b style="color: #303030; font-size: 14pt;">to</b><span style="color: #303030; font-size: 14pt;"> LGBT. A blatant promotion of LGBT ideology against Biblical values.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="color: #333333;">Moreover, this bill is
addressed not only to professional therapy and counseling services. According
to Justice Minister David Lemetti</span><span style="color: #333333;">, the sponsor of Bill C-4, this bill
will make it illegal for pastors or parents to pressure their children to stop
homosexual behaviour or to force them to dress according to their biological
sex. But it</span></span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #303030; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> does <b>not</b> ban
teachers, for example, from pressuring students into LGBT behaviour.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: #303030; font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;">In short, Bill C-4
criminalizes pastors, parents, and counselors striving to instill Biblical sexual values in their charges. Clearly, Bill C-4 presents a great challenge to Christians in Canada.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span lang="EN-CA" style="color: #303030; font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The Conservative Party’s
Leftward Shift</span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #303030; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Just last June, the
previous Bill C-6 was voted against by most (62) Conservative MPs. So, why, a
mere 6 months later did no MP dare speak against Bill C-4, which is worse than
Bill C-6?</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #222222; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">
Indeed, it was the Conservatives who made the motion, both in Parliament and Senate, to adopt Bill C-4 unanimously,
without debate. Even one vote against this motion would have forced a debate,
with the opportunity to make changes to Bill C-4.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #303030; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">A major factor is the
recent (Sept.17, 2021) federal election. Erin O’Toole, the Conservative Party
leader, had hoped to gain votes by moving the Conservative Party (CP) leftward.
This involved, among others things, presenting the CP as pro-LGBT. Consequently, o</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #222222; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">n
issues of LGBT, abortion, climate taxes, covid mandates, and the
like, there was now little substantial difference between the CP and the
Liberals.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: #303030; font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;">The election strategy failed. It may have enticed a few new CP voters, but many former CP voters </span></span><span style="color: #303030; font-family: arial; font-size: 18.6667px;">deserted the CP</span><span style="color: #303030; font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;">, sensing that the CP was becoming just another woke left-wing party. </span></span><span style="color: #303030; font-family: arial; font-size: 18.6667px;"> The election left</span><span style="color: #303030; font-family: arial; font-size: 18.6667px;"> the CP in much the same minority position as before.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: #303030; font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;">The CP leadership,
however, seems to believe that future CP success depends on further cleansing the CP of any vestiges of its former social-conservative image. Although O’Toole had promised a free vote on Bill C-4, there was no doubt heavy pressure on his MPs and Senators to accept Bill C-4. And they all meekly complied, so that the </span></span><span style="color: #303030; font-family: arial; font-size: 18.6667px;">CP was able to out-liberal the Liberals in their support of LGBT by moving to embrace Bill C-4 without debate.</span><span style="color: #303030; font-family: arial; font-size: 18.6667px;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Our Canadian Reformed
MP’s</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="color: #303030; font-size: 14pt;">This brings us to our two Canadian Reformed MP's, Tako Van Popta and Arnold Viersen. MP Van
Popta, although he had voted </span><b style="color: #303030; font-size: 14pt;">for</b><span style="color: #303030; font-size: 14pt;"> the previous Bill C-6 in its
first reading</span><span style="color: #303030; font-size: 14pt;">, ultimately did vote
against Bill C-6 in its final reading, to his credit. MP Viersen had
consistently opposed the previous Bill C-6.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: #303030; font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Their lack of opposition against Bill C-4 is thus a huge disappointment. </span></span><span style="color: #303030; font-family: arial; font-size: 18.6667px;">I emailed them both, asking for clarification and explanation regarding their apparent support of Bill C-4, but received no reply.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Yes, defying CP coercion might have resulted in expulsion from the CP caucus. Yes, it might have </span><span lang="EN-CA" style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">cost MP Van Popta his recent promotion to O-Toole's</span><span lang="EN-CA" style="background-color: transparent; color: #303030; font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> deputy shadow minister of employment. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: #303030; font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;">But where are their ultim</span></span><span style="color: #303030; font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;">ate loyalties? As members of
the Canadian Reformed Church </span></span><span style="color: #303030; font-family: arial; font-size: 18.6667px;">MPs Viersen and Van Popta</span><span style="color: #303030; font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt;"> surely know that, as MPs, they were ultimately appointed by God, with the important task of protecting those who do good and punishing wrongdoers (Romans 13, Belgic
Confession Art.36).</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: #303030; font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Hence, MPs Viersen and Van Popta should
have </span></span><span style="color: #303030; font-family: arial; font-size: 18.6667px;">opposed this evil bill bold</span><span style="color: #303030; font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt;">ly and courageously, like Daniel and his friends, whatever the political cost. Is not their abject failure to stand up for Christian
convictions an affront to their Christian supporters, and even to God
Himself?</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;"><span style="color: #303030; font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;">*****</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Appendix</span></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.75pt; text-align: justify;">Conversion Therapy</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Definition of <i>conversion therapy</i><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">320.101 </span></b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">In sections 320.102 to 320.104, <b><i>conversion
therapy</i></b> means a practice, treatment or service designed to<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">(a) </span></b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">change a person’s
sexual orientation to heterosexual;<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">(b) </span></b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">change a person’s
gender identity to cisgender;<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">(c) </span></b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">change a person’s
gender expression so that it conforms to the sex assigned to the person at
birth;<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">(d) </span></b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">repress or reduce
non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour;<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">(e) </span></b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">repress a person’s
non-cisgender gender identity; or<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">(f) </span></b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">repress or reduce a
person’s gender expression that does not conform to the sex assigned to the
person at birth.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">For greater certainty, this definition does not
include a practice, treatment or service that relates to the exploration or
development of an integrated personal identity — such as a practice, treatment
or service that relates to a person’s gender transition — and that is not based
on an assumption that a particular sexual orientation, gender identity or
gender expression is to be preferred over another.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Conversion therapy<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">320.102 </span></b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Everyone who knowingly
causes another person to undergo conversion therapy — including by providing
conversion therapy to that other person — is<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">(a) </span></b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">guilty of an
indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five
years; or<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">(b) </span></b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">guilty of an offence
punishable on summary conviction.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Promoting or advertising<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">320.103 </span></b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Everyone who knowingly
promotes or advertises conversion therapy is<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">(a) </span></b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">guilty of an
indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two
years; or<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">(b) </span></b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">guilty of an offence
punishable on summary conviction.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Material benefit<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">320.104 </span></b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Everyone who receives
a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it is obtained or derived
directly or indirectly from the provision of conversion therapy, is<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">(a) </span></b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">guilty of an
indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two
years; or<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">(b) </span></b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">guilty of an offence
punishable on summary conviction.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA" style="color: #333333; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="font-family: arial;">*****</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>john bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-19992782543469393622021-10-30T10:48:00.001-07:002021-12-09T17:09:15.707-08:00Two Free E-Books Available<p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">I have just updated my book <i>The Divine Challenge: On Matter, Mind, Math, and Meaning. A</i>t the same time, I converted it into an e-book, available (free) in pdf format <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/10Xlr2KPKo2mxiguHaoojvTxm1ihjtQmE/view?usp=sharing" target="_blank">here</a>. This is available also in epub format, but for some reason google.drive can't handle epub, so that you should send me an email if you want the epub file.</span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6Hq0vWePmyxSq1_X3ZqFsj-aFBRdTzQBqaOcstC_-VABmaSRv0oDJa9MkWkHiwEWU5hrvrksxut6wrc8raKHHOoUYwewc_C2JoXTEfy-rZjg0WM2is25RbdqwFZZ8pizFI1pBO_jgbSw/s1126/cover.dcf2.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1126" data-original-width="867" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6Hq0vWePmyxSq1_X3ZqFsj-aFBRdTzQBqaOcstC_-VABmaSRv0oDJa9MkWkHiwEWU5hrvrksxut6wrc8raKHHOoUYwewc_C2JoXTEfy-rZjg0WM2is25RbdqwFZZ8pizFI1pBO_jgbSw/w246-h320/cover.dcf2.png" width="246" /></span></a></div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /><span><br /></span></span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Its description is as follows:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">This book is about
the war between God and fallen man. I<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">t
concerns the double challenge, between God and man, to establish who will rule.
The war will be addressed at the level of competing worldviews, and their ability
to explain reality and assign meaning. The battleground will range over the
realms of matter, mind, and math.</span></span></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">The prime purpose is the apologetic one of showing the superiority of
the Christian worldview over its main competitors. The main thesis is that only
Christianity offers a cohesive, meaningful worldview. The challenges of modern
naturalism and post-modern relativism ultimately self-destruct. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span>This book is addressed to the intelligent non-expert. Although the
discussion will range over various issues in science, math, philosophy, and
theology, no prior knowledge of these disciplines is assumed. The aim is to
convey the basic thrust of the arguments in non-technical language, as simply
as possible. Nevertheless, some of these issues are very subtle, requiring the
reader's close attention.</span><span><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">---------</span></span></p><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">I have also uploaded our revised e-book <i>How Should Christians View Origins? </i> A free pdf version can be downloaded <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aR3P1sGPLhZVagQ4foz9jY_EaNRwZCUz/view?usp=sharing" target="_blank">here</a>.</span></span></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium; letter-spacing: normal;"><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1206" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJWvjHSpJ0apDwp7Cp0gAa4fwAQFSPjqQCHKORvThfnnrwzwtoQNnpmZRxgvGO2kFDbhOfi9kyJOX6UXOos20Fy_UEHGhW56feSyw_38CtfYaD1CVnlOZcNP0WT7efE6mREOxw_W3j1BI/s320/cover.rev.ed.new.jpg" style="text-align: center;" width="241" /></span></span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium; letter-spacing: normal;"><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">Its description is as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></p><div><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Are you related to apes? Is Adam just a myth? Is evolution a fact? Is the earth billions of years old? Has science disproven the plain reading of the Bible, particularly concerning origins? Many Christians think so.</span></span></div><div><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">This booklet explores the nature of science and the influence of naturalism. It examines pertinent scientific evidence and biblical texts. It shows how basic Christian doctrines are grounded in the historicity of biblical events. It defends the traditional, plain sense reading of Genesis.</span></span></div><div><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Much is at stake. Pastors, Bible teachers, church leaders, and students need to embrace a Christian worldview that fully upholds God's Word as the ultimate authority. This booklet provides a solid beginning towards this goal.</span></span></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">*****</span></span></p>john bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-87185258963472024642021-09-03T16:14:00.004-07:002023-03-15T08:14:58.096-07:00What is the Genuine Reformed View of Science?<span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Numerous writers claim to defend a “Reformed” view of science (for example, [1], [2], [3], [4]). Reformed theology is grounded in a high view of Scripture. Yet, allegedly Reformed scholars often embrace aspects of mainstream science (e.g., evolution, an ancient earth, etc.) that require a re-interpretation of the Biblical text (e.g. a non-literal reading of Gen. 1-11). This raises the question: </span><span style="font-family: arial;">What should characterize a genuinely Reformed view of science? </span></span><div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"> <br /><b><a name='more'></a>Defining Science </b><br />First, what do we mean by "science."? I shall define “science” broadly as the systematic study of reality, particularly the natural and social worlds, and the application of the resultant knowledge. This includes physics, biology, psychology, sociology, cosmology, technology, and history, among others. Science is grounded in our observations of nature. The observed data are analyzed, using mathematics, for patterns, regularities, and laws. <br /><br />Science also includes a more speculative, theoretical component. Scientists want to explain reality. Particular events are explained in terms of known physical laws, and these laws are in turn explained in terms of more fundamental concepts, principles, and theories. Thus, for example, our observations of planets suggest a law stating that all planets orbit their suns in elliptical orbits; these elliptical orbits are then explained in terms of a broader gravitational theory such as Newtonian mechanics or Einstein’s general relativity. <br /><br />Scientists hope to extrapolate beyond their limited set of observational data to draw more general conclusions about the universe at large. This requires various assumptions about the nature of the universe, such as the presumed uniformity of nature (i.e., that the natural laws observed here and now apply everywhere and always). <br /><br />I shall refer to the basic observations as <i>science1</i>, and the more theoretical explanation and extrapolation of these observations as <i>science2</i>. The Bible contains instances of both science1 (e.g., the description of the Flood in Gen.7:11-24) and science2 (e.g., weather prediction in Matt. 16:2-3).</span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b>Defining “Reformed”</b><br />Next, we ask, what should “Reformed” mean?<br /><br />Often the essence of “Reformed” is taken to be some notion or slogan allegedly associated with the Reformed faith (e.g., “general revelation”, “common grace”, or “all truth is God’s truth”), which elevates human scientific theorizing (science2) to virtually the same level as Scripture. Or the label “Reformed” is based on some teaching (or presumed extension thereof) of a respected Reformed scholar, such as </span><span style="font-family: arial;">Calvin’s theory of accommodation or </span><span style="font-family: arial;">Warfield’s openness to evolution. Or the author is merely connected to a denomination or institution with “Reformed” in its name.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><br />Traditionally, “Reformed” churches were those who adhered to the Reformed confessional standards (i.e., </span><span><span style="font-family: arial;">the Belgic Confession</span><span style="font-family: arial;">, the Heidelberg Catechism, and </span><span style="font-family: arial;">the Canons of Dordt)</span><span style="font-family: arial;">. These standards, dating back to the 16th and 17th centuries, were adopted after deep deliberation by many Reformed theologians. They are still upheld by many Reformed denominations today. </span></span></span></div><div><span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Thus, I maintain that a genuinely "Reformed" view of science should conform to the Reformed Confessions. </span></span></div><div><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">The Reformed Confessions on Knowledge</span></b></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span>The prime issue is one of </span><i><b>epistemology</b></i><span>, the study of knowledge. How do we know? In particular, how should Scriptural knowledge relate to scientific knowledge? </span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">The Belgic Confession, after asserting there is only one God (Art.1), continues with how we can know God and His will (Articles 2 to 7). These are worth stating in full: </span></div><div><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span> </span><span> </span>Art. 2: How God Makes Himself Known to Us</span></b></div><div><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><i>We know him by two means: First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe; which is before our eyes as a most beautiful book, wherein all creatures, great and small, are as so many letters leading us to perceive clearly God’s invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, as the apostle Paul says in Romans 1:20. All these things are sufficient to convict men and leave them without excuse. Second, he makes himself more clearly and fully known to us by his holy and divine Word as far as is necessary for us in this life, to his glory and our salvation.</i></span></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><b><span> </span><span> </span>Art. 3: The Word of God </b><br /></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><i>We confess that this Word of God did not come by the will of man, but that men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit, as the apostle Peter says (2 Pet 1:21). Thereafter, in his special care for us and our salvation, God commanded his servants, the prophets and apostles, to commit his revealed Word to writing and he himself wrote with his own finger the two tables of the law. Therefore we call such writings holy and divine Scriptures.Article 4 lists all the canonical books of the Bible. </i></span></blockquote><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><b><span> </span><span> </span>Art.5: The Authority of Holy Scripture</b> <br /><blockquote><i>We receive all these books, and these only, as holy and canonical, for the regulation, foundation, and confirmation of our faith. We believe without any doubt all things contained in them, not so much because the church receives and approves them as such, but especially because the Holy Spirit witnesses in our hearts that they are from God, and also because they contain the evidence of this in themselves; for even the blind are able to perceive that the things foretold in them are being fulfilled.</i></blockquote></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Article 6 discusses the Apocryphal books, which are secondary to the Bible. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /><b><span> </span><span> </span>Art. 7: The Sufficiency of Holy Scripture </b><br /><blockquote><i>We believe that this Holy Scripture fully contains the will of God and that all that man must believe in order to be saved is sufficiently taught therein. The whole manner of worship which God requires of us is written in it at length. It is therefore unlawful for anyone, even for an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in Holy Scripture: yes, even if it be an angel from heaven, as the apostle Paul says (Gal 1:8). Since it is forbidden to add to or take away anything from the Word of God (Deut 12:32), it is evident that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects. <br /><br />We may not consider any writings of men, however holy these men may have been, of equal value with the divine Scriptures; nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, since the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and are lighter than a breath (Ps 62:9). We therefore reject with all our heart whatever does not agree with this infallible rule, as the apostles have taught us: Test the spirits to see whether they are from God (1 Jn 4:1). Likewise: If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting (2 Jn 1:10).</i></blockquote>Along the same lines, the Heidelberg Catechism asserts, <br /><blockquote>“<i>true faith is a sure knowledge whereby I accept as true all that God has revealed to us in His Word…This faith the Holy Spirit works in my heart by the gospel</i>.” (Q&A 21)</blockquote></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">The teachings of the confessions regarding knowledge can be summarized as follows: </span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /><b>1. The primacy of inerrant, authoritative Scripture</b><br />The Reformed confessions uphold a very high view of the Bible, as the revealed Word of God. The Belgic Confession affirms that the Bible is the written Word of God, revealed to holy men moved by the Holy Spirit (Art. 3) and, hence, is inerrant and fully authoritative (“<i>believing without doubt all things contained in them,</i>” Art. 5). It is forbidden to “<i>add unto or take anything away from the word of God</i>” (Art.7). Moreover, no human ideas or writings may be put at the same level as Scripture, by which all else is to be tested. Thus, since the Bible is the Word of God, who never errs or lies (e.g., John 17:17; 2 Tim.3:16; Titus 1:2), it must be accepted as inerrant and fully authoritative in all it says. <br /><br /><b>2. Certainty from the Holy Spirit </b><br />The Holy Spirit moved men to write Scripture (2 Peter 1:20-21), but also witnesses in our hearts that Scripture is from God (1 Thes.1:5-6). Hence, we can believe <i>without doubt</i> all things it contains (Art.5). Also, the Heidelberg Catechism affirms that the Holy Spirit works “true faith” ("<i>a sure knowledge whereby I accept as true all that God has revealed to us in His Word</i>") in my heart by the gospel (Q&A 21). <br /><br /><b>3. The Importance of Observational Evidence </b><br />We are to believe that the Bible is God’s Word also on the objective ground of its fulfilled prophecies (Art.5), which confirm that what was predicted was in fact observed to happen. <br /><br />The Bible itself testifies to the importance of first-hand experience. For example, "<i>many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing</i>" (John 2:23). Belief in Jesus' resurrection is grounded in the disciples' actual experiences: <br /><blockquote><i>When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken</i> (John 2:22). </blockquote>Paul backs up his claim of Christ's resurrection by appealing to eye-witnesses of the risen Christ (1 Cor. 15:5-8); John, too, bases his teachings on what he has personally heard and seen (I John 1:1-5). Luke writes his gospel, based on eyewitness reports, so that the reader may have certainty concerning the things taught (Luke 1:1-4). Jesus rebukes Thomas, “<i>Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed</i>” (John20:29). Now we see dimly, but then I shall know fully, “<i>face to face</i>” (1 Cor.13:12). <br /><br />Our senses are reliable because they are of divine origin ("<i>the hearing ear and the seeing eye, the Lord has made them both,</i>" Prov.20:12). We need these to hear the gospel ("<i>so faith comes from hearing,</i>" Rom.10:17) and to read the Bible.<br /><br /><b>4. God Reveals Himself to Us Through Nature </b><br />God reveals Himself (his power and deity) also through nature, so that nobody is without excuse. However, he makes himself known more clearly and fully in Scripture (Art.2). <br /><br />Note that nature is specifically said to lead man to clearly perceive <i><b>only</b></i> God's eternal power and deity. Unlike the Bible, the book of nature contains no propositional truth, but only pictures of creatures. As such, it concerns only our observations of nature (science1). Its message is so immediate and clear that nobody can plead ignorance of God. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">But how can pictures of visible creatures teach us of the invisible things of God? According to Reformed thinking, Adam's creation in the image of God included "<i>true and wholesome knowledge of his Creator and of all spiritual things</i>" (Canons of Dort 3-4, Art.1). After the Fall, man still retains sufficient ability to perceive God so as to render himself inexcusable (CD 3-4, Art.4; BC Art.14). This innate sense (the so-called <i>sensus divinitatis</i>) enables man to clearly discern God's hand in nature, even though he may want to suppress this knowledge (Rom.1: 18-25). <br /><br /><b>5. Man’s corrupted nature and limited knowledge </b><br />The Reformed Confessions are skeptical about fallen man’s knowledge claims. No human writings or decrees are of equal value as Scripture, “<i>for all men are of themselves liars, and more vain than vanity itself</i>” (Art.7). After the Fall, “<i>man became wicked and perverse, corrupt in all his ways, he lost all the excellent gifts</i>” (Art.14). <br /><br />The Canons of Dordt (3-4, Art.4) describe man's fallen epistemic condition as follows: <br /><blockquote><i>To be sure, there is left in man after the fall, some light of nature, whereby he retains some notions about God, about natural things, and about the difference between what is honourable and shameful, and shows some regard for virtue and outward order. But so far is he from arriving at the saving knowledge of God and true conversion through this light of nature that he does not even use it properly in natural and civil matters. Rather, whatever this light may be, man wholly pollutes it in various ways and suppresses it by his wickedness. In doing so, he renders himself without excuse before God.</i></blockquote></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span>Fallen man does retain some knowledge of nature and morality, which some may call "common grace". But it is greatly distorted, so that he</span><span> does not use the “</span><i>light of nature</i><span>” properly even in natural matters (e.g., science). </span></span></div><div><span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /><b>Conclusion</b> <br />A Reformed epistemology acknowledges the following:</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span><br />1. Our observational experiences are basic, including observing nature (science1) and reading Scripture. <br /><br />2. The Holy Spirit gives believers the certainty that the Bible is God’s Word; all men perceive </span><span>God’s hand in nature (via either </span><span>their </span><i>sensus divinitatis </i><span>or the Holy Spirit</span><span>). </span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br />3. Scripture, being God's revealed Word, is inerrant and fully authoritative, having the status of divinely warranted eye-witness truth (reliable science1). <br /><br />4. Scientific theories (science2) should be in accord with observations (science1), which include Scriptural facts. Since fallen man distorts the truth, we must reject scientific theories that contradict Scripture. <br /><br />In short, a Reformed epistemology, like naturalist science, considers observational evidence as basic. Unlike naturalist science, it accords Scripture the status of divinely warranted eye-witness data. Hence, it judges scientific theories in the light of Scripture, rather than vice versa. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span><span>Reformed epistemology stresses that, </span></span><span>due to fallen man’s rejection of that divine truth, there exists an</span><span> </span><b><i>antithesis</i></b><span> between worldly wisdom and God's revealed truth. Thus, although worldly science has led to many useful applications, we should be very discerning regarding its inherently anti-biblical assumptions and implications. </span></span></div><div><span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Under the banner of "common grace" or "all truth is God's truth", too many Christian scholars have unduly embraced worldly wisdom, thereby undermining Biblical authority. All of the writers (</span><span style="font-family: arial;">[1], [2], [3], [4]), noted above,</span><span style="font-family: arial;"> to some degree promote mainstream science above Scripture, and thus fall short of being genuinely Reformed.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><div style="text-align: center;">****<span style="text-align: center;"> </span></div></span><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">[1] <i>Origins: A Reformed Look at Creation, Design, & Evolution</i> by Deborah B. Haarsma & Loren D. Haarsma (2011).<br /><br />[2] <i>A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture</i>, Dr. Keith Mathison (and R.C. Sproul) (2013 Ligonier).<br /><br />[3] <i>How do we do Science as Reformed Christians? </i>John Zwart (Pro Rege, 2020). </span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">[4] <i>Reformed Theology and Evolutionary Theory</i> (2020 Eerdmans) by Gijsbert van den Brink.</span></blockquote><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">***** </span></p><div style="mso-element: footnote-list;"><div id="ftn1" style="mso-element: footnote;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="background: rgb(248, 245, 238); margin: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div></div></div>john bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-81426491948362039252021-07-19T15:13:00.001-07:002021-08-03T20:19:19.153-07:00The Absurdity of a Solid Dome<p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"> According to many Bible scholars, people of the Ancient Near East (ANE) believed that the sky was a fixed solid dome - in which the Sun,
moon, and stars were embedded - supported by pillars, or mountains, at the ends
of a flat earth. The Israelites are said to have shared this erroneous ANE
cosmology, which is allegedly the underlying idea behind the
"firmament" or “expanse” (<i>raqia</i>) of Genesis 1. <a name='more'></a> </span></p><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4nW8G_XNd8Lx2Wi4cS9gCC8L5X0xu69_bhJXhki-2Z06vqBgGyRo6xV-FHRjoL2x5-kwJrjtUjZvOoWGlt8yhI_Dw4gYQtmNWfuUwGYA-MAsr6w_9KR1jDgNxuTZNTyer4P465V5-64I/s872/ancient.cos.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="652" data-original-width="872" height="299" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4nW8G_XNd8Lx2Wi4cS9gCC8L5X0xu69_bhJXhki-2Z06vqBgGyRo6xV-FHRjoL2x5-kwJrjtUjZvOoWGlt8yhI_Dw4gYQtmNWfuUwGYA-MAsr6w_9KR1jDgNxuTZNTyer4P465V5-64I/w400-h299/ancient.cos.png" width="400" /></span></a></div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">(From N. F. Gier, <i>God, Reason, and the
Evangelicals, </i>University Press of America, 1987)</span></div>
<span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><span><div><span><br /></span></div><b>Not a Fixed Dome but a Rotating Sphere</b></span><br /></span><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Were ANE people in general, and the Israelites in
particular, really so dense as to believe in a literal solid dome, as pictured
above?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Ancient man may have lacked modern technology, such as telescopes and
computers, and sophisticated mathematical theories. But he wasn't blind or
stupid.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">It was obvious to ancient man, as it is to us, that the Sun
and Moon move across the sky every day, rising in the East and setting in the
West. So the Sun and Moon are clearly not attached to a fixed dome. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">What about the stars? At first glance, the stars may seem to
be fixed on a dome. Yet, anyone (try it yourself!) watching the stars for a few
hours sees them moving through the sky, much like the Sun and Moon. So also the
stars are clearly not attached to a stationary dome.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Moreover, the stellar motions clearly have a pronounced
pattern. Here is a <a href="https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/3772414331480635861/5747084617573745586"><span style="color: blue;">photo</span></a> (a time exposure of a few hours)
showing star-trails as seen in Fayyum, Egypt (latitude 29.3 degrees
North). <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilgQhwB04z5zO7CC6bktDbYyFkITkJnAJsnobRyusS7Iv5v4taz3iQrfRu0-x3CXrE-GetiDgNMa_6LRUi_Q2B0fYurkexXqGwRG9Sz-9DVoMrzp1ZeZ0fnolACDziS8vqE_Aum-e5nPs/s400/star-trails.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="266" data-original-width="400" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilgQhwB04z5zO7CC6bktDbYyFkITkJnAJsnobRyusS7Iv5v4taz3iQrfRu0-x3CXrE-GetiDgNMa_6LRUi_Q2B0fYurkexXqGwRG9Sz-9DVoMrzp1ZeZ0fnolACDziS8vqE_Aum-e5nPs/w400-h266/star-trails.png" width="400" /></span></a></div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /><br /></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The stars near the star Polaris (above the Earth's North
pole) travel in complete circles; stars further away rise in the East and set
in the West, so that different stars are visible at different times of the
night.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In short, the revolving stars seem to be fixed, not to a
stationary dome (a semi-sphere), but to a rotating sphere, called the <b>celestial
sphere</b>. The celestial sphere surrounds the earth and is not supported
by it (see <a href="https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/3772414331480635861/5747084617573745586"><span style="color: blue;">figure</span></a>). <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikJKLxXvEQo_J8b4Wwyq9zuxDmm-l0GJEjMwZ8PQ5hqilB458WrlTtq1OJreraEDh7f5juEIUl8cz1B4NmBT8scjH_xFbApmjCV90OgwTH5N0Ue50c3orur_oBI9ESwfNKyQEgMcbQ09Q/s577/cel.sphere.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><img border="0" data-original-height="524" data-original-width="577" height="364" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikJKLxXvEQo_J8b4Wwyq9zuxDmm-l0GJEjMwZ8PQ5hqilB458WrlTtq1OJreraEDh7f5juEIUl8cz1B4NmBT8scjH_xFbApmjCV90OgwTH5N0Ue50c3orur_oBI9ESwfNKyQEgMcbQ09Q/w400-h364/cel.sphere.png" width="400" /></span></a></div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /><br /></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Although the stars seemed to be fixed to the celestial
sphere, it is easily seen that the Moon moves along this sphere roughly once a
month, and the Sun once a year, marking off months, seasons, and years (Gen.1:15).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">The ancients, keener observers of the night sky than modern
ANE scholars, were well aware of such celestial motions. Indeed, the ancient
Egyptians marked the beginning of their year by the first dawn appearance of
Sirius, the brightest star in the sky.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In line with such simple observational considerations, ANE
scholar Margaret Huxley, upon close examination of numerous cuneiform sources,
concludes that ancient Mesopotamians thought the sky to be a rotating sphere
with a polar axis, rather than a stationary vault.[<span style="background: white; letter-spacing: -0.25pt;">Huxley, Margaret. “The Shape of the Cosmos According to Cuneiform
Sources.” <i>Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society</i>, vol. 7, no. 2,
1997, pp. 189–198. <i>JSTOR</i>, www.jstor.org/stable/25183348. Accessed
17 June 2021.] </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><span style="background: white;"><b>The Myth of the Solid Dome</b></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><span style="background: white;">If the solid dome is so contrary to common sense and has no historical
basis, how did it come to dominate biblical scholarship? </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><span style="background: white; letter-spacing: -0.25pt;">That tale is related by </span><span style="background: white;">Randall W.
Younker and Richard M. Davidson [</span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/3772414331480635861/5747084617573745586"><span style="background: white; color: blue;">"The Myth of The Solid
Heavenly Dome: Another Look at The Hebrew."</span></a><span style="background: white;"> <i>Andrews
University Seminary Studies (AUSS)</i> 49.1: 125-147 (2011)]. They find
that the idea that the ancient Israelites believed in a solid vault resting on
a flat earth emerged during the early 1800s, primarily through the American
writer Washington Irving (1783-1859). He propagated the myth that most ancient
and medieval people believed in a flat earth, until the time of Columbus. [</span>For
a detailed account of the flat earth myth, see Jeffrey Burton
Russell, <i>Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and the Historians </i>(Westport,
Conn.: Praeger, 1991)].<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Younker and Davidson conclude that, in fact, the majority of
early Christian and medieval scholars <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">“believed in a spherical earth, surrounded by celestial
spheres that conveyed the sun, moon, stars, and planets in their orbits around
the earth. Moreover, the concept of a heavenly vault does not appear in any
ancient Babylonian astronomical documents. Rather, this notion was erroneously
introduced into the scholarly literature through a mistranslation (1890) of
the <i>Enuma Elish </i>by Peter Jensen."</span></blockquote><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Conclusion<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">In sum, there is no basis for the notion that ANE people,
including the Israelites, believed that the sky was a solid dome. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">Rather than reading presumed ancient cosmology
into Genesis, we should simply read it on its own terms. Doing so, we see that
the <a><i>raqia</i></a> of Genesis 1, called heaven (Gen.1:8), is clearly not solid: birds fly in it (Gen.1:20,
cf. Deut.4:17), and the sun, moon, and stars move through it (Gen.1:14-18).
In fact, the <a><i>raqia</i></a><span class="MsoCommentReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;"> </span></span>is simply the sky, including the atmosphere and outer space.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;">*****<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div style="text-align: left;"><!--[if !supportAnnotations]-->
<!--[endif]-->
<div><!--[if !supportAnnotations]-->
<div class="msocomtxt" id="_com_1" language="JavaScript"><!--[endif]--><!--[if !supportAnnotations]--><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large;"><a name="_msocom_1"></a><!--[endif]-->
</span><br /></div></div><div><div class="msocomtxt" id="_com_2" language="JavaScript">
<!--[if !supportAnnotations]--></div>
<!--[endif]--></div>
</div>john bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-84059109265094501382021-05-31T10:35:00.000-07:002021-05-31T10:35:38.550-07:00God and Necessary Truths<p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Christianity maintains that only
God is self-existent. He is the sovereign Creator, who freely creates
everything else. God exists <i>necessarily</i>, in that it is impossible for God not to exist, God's non-existence is inconceivable. The created universe, in contrast, is merely <i>contingent, </i>in that it could have been different, and need not have existed at all. But what about abstract objects, such as
the laws of logic and math, which seem to be necessary truths? How do they relate to
God? </span></p> <a name='more'></a>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Consider, for
example, the equation 3 + 4 = 7. Was there ever a time when three plus four did not
equal seven? Surely this was always true. So, how could this proposition have
been created? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Moreover, is
it not <i>necessarily</i> true? If so, does this not suggest that it
exists independently of God? That would challenge God’s <i>sovereignty</i>.
Further, if necessary abstract objects depend on God, was God forced to create
or uphold them? That would challenge God’s <i>freedom</i> to create.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In fact, even God’s attributes seem to be closely connected with necessary truths. </span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="color: #1a1a1a; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">For example,
God’s character has a <em><span face=""Arial",sans-serif">logical</span></em> aspect.
God’s word is <i>truth</i> (</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="color: #a10820;">John 17:17</span><span style="color: #1a1a1a;">); God
never <i>lies</i> (</span><span style="color: #a10820;">Titus 1:2</span><span style="color: #1a1a1a;">) and is always <i>faithful</i> (</span><span style="color: #a10820;">Ps. 117:2</span><span style="color: #1a1a1a;">). God
means what he says, not the opposite. These all entail that the law of
non-contradiction holds. Also, God’s identity is eternally the same; hence the
logical law of identity must be eternally true. </span></span></span><span style="color: #1a1a1a; font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Thus the very nature of God seems
to entail the eternal validity of the laws of logic.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #1a1a1a; font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%;">God’s character also has a <em><span face=""Arial",sans-serif">numerical</span></em> aspect: God
is <em><span face=""Arial",sans-serif">tri-une</span></em>,
consisting of <em><span face=""Arial",sans-serif">three</span></em> distinct
persons – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Since God’s trinity is eternal, so, it
would seem, are numbers.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">So how do necessary truths relate to God?
There are two main views, associating abstract objects, such as mathematical
or logical truths, either with God’s <i>mind </i>or with his <i>creation</i>.</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">1.
Mathematics in God’s Mind</span></b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Augustine
placed mathematical objects as ideas or <i>concepts</i> in God’s
mind. He associated mathematics with </span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“<i>wisdom</i>”,<span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"> the divine Word (<i>logos)</i> that
was</span><span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;"> “<i>in
the beginning</i>,” and was both “<i>God</i>” and, also, “<i>with God</i>” (<i>John</i> 1:1).
Thus, mathematical objects are eternal, necessary, directly connected to God,
and independent of human minds. This is called</span><span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"> “<i>theistic conceptualism</i>”. </span></span></span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">More recently, a similar position
has been defended by Steven Boyer and Walter Huddell III</span><span style="background: white; color: black; font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">.</span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">A closely
related view is that mathematical objects are <i>products</i> of the
divine mind (<i>e.g.</i>, counting numbers, collecting sets, <i>etc</i>.).
This is known as <i>theistic activism.</i> It has been defended by
Christian philosophers Alvin Plantinga and Christopher Menzel.<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">A variant of
this has abstract objects depend on God’s <i>awareness of his ability to
plan and create</i>, where the prime mathematical structures are found in God’s
<i>plan</i> for the universe in Christ.<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The details of these variants need
not concern us. Augustine thought the exact relation between mathematics and
wisdom was shrouded in mystery, since creatures, including humans, cannot
comprehend the divine mind.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Necessary truths, eternally
associated with God’s mind, do not in any way limit God’s sovereignty, or his
freedom to act according to his will. For example, God cannot sin,
for, being perfectly good, such is contrary to his will. But that
self-imposed constraint does not hamper God's plan. Likewise, since God is
rational, he knows and upholds all necessary truths. God acts according to his
character, and God’s character determines even what is necessary.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Alvin
Plantinga argues that, since God is necessarily all-knowing, necessary
propositions (<i>e.g.</i>, 3 + 4 = 7) are necessarily always known to God, who
thus affirms their existence. The abstract objects of logic and mathematics
exist as ideas in the mind of God. They pose no threat to God since they are
merely inert ideas that depend on God for their existence. Plantinga writes:</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">According to Kronecker God created
the natural numbers and men created the rest...Kronecker was wrong on two
counts. God hasn't created the numbers; a thing is created only if its
existence has a beginning, and no number ever began to exist. And secondly,
other mathematical entities (the reals, for example) stand in the same relation
to God...as do the natural numbers. Sequences of numbers, for example, are
necessary beings and have been created neither by God nor by anyone else. Still,
each such sequence is such that it is part of God's nature to affirm its
existence.<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[4]</span></span></span></span></span></blockquote><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><a href="https://d.docs.live.net/61d7f3d049989ff4/post-god.asbtract.objects.docx#_edn4" name="_ednref4" style="mso-endnote-id: edn4;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Here
Plantinga refers to the German mathematician Leopold Kronecker (1823-1891), who
believed that, in mathematics, only the natural numbers had a real, objective
existence. Plantinga believes that, in exploring mathematics, one is exploring
the nature of God's rule over the universe ... and the nature of God Himself.
He concludes, "<i>mathematics thus takes its proper place as one of the
loci of theology</i>".<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Similarly, logic
is not above God but derives from God's constant and non-contradictory nature.
Reformed philosopher Gordon Clark notes,</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">the law of contradiction is not to
be taken as an axiom prior to or independent of God…the law is God thinking.<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[6]</span></span></span></span></span></blockquote><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><a href="https://d.docs.live.net/61d7f3d049989ff4/post-god.asbtract.objects.docx#_edn6" name="_ednref6" style="mso-endnote-id: edn6;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> <o:p></o:p></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Clark views
truth and logic as attributes of God. Many other Christian thinkers concur. For
example, theologian John Frame writes:</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Does God, then, observe the law of
non-contradiction? Not in the sense that this law is somehow higher than God
himself. Rather, God is himself non-contradictory and is therefore himself the
criterion of logical consistency and implication. Logic is an attribute of God,
as are justice, mercy, wisdom, knowledge.<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[7]</span></span></span></span></span></blockquote><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><a href="https://d.docs.live.net/61d7f3d049989ff4/post-god.asbtract.objects.docx#_edn7" name="_ednref7" style="mso-endnote-id: edn7;" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"></span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> <o:p></o:p></span><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p>Hence, in this view, necessary truths such as logic or math are intimately connected with God's very nature. </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial;"><b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">2.
Mathematics as part of creation</span></b><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Some
Christians reject such a high view of necessary truths. Christian philosopher Roy
Clouser, for example, considers logical and mathematical truths to be part of creation, and
not eternal.<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[8]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span> Creation, in his
view, consists of (1) concrete things and (2) laws (including logic and
mathematics) governing these things</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="border: 1pt none windowtext; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in;">.</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">According to
Clouser, God stands above such created logic and mathematics; God has taken on
his logical and numerical characteristics only for the sake of covenantal
fellowship with us. Had God wanted to, he could have taken on quite different
characteristics. Clouser contends that God accommodates himself to our
creaturely limitations. God's uncreated, unrevealed being is unknowable to us.<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[9]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In short,
Clouser argues that mathematics is created, so that mathematical (including
logical) truths are not <i>necessary</i> truths. In particular, they
need not apply to God.</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">This raises
deep, subtle questions about God's essential nature. Might it be the case that
God, in his essential nature is <b>not</b> triune? Or <b>not</b> faithful, just, or good? </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 107%;">It seems
implausible that God's unrevealed being would conflict with his revealed
being. Nowhere in his revealed Word does God give any hint of that. The Bible
gives no indication that God's logic is any different from ours. Rather,
genuine human wisdom appears to be part of the same wisdom that informs God
(see Proverbs 8).</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 19.9733px; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">One might speculate about God's unrevealed nature, but how can we ever truly know anything about God other than that which he has revealed to us?</span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Moreover, it
seems incoherent to claim that we can know nothing about God's essential nature
and, at the same time, that normal logic need not apply to it. This implies
that we <i>do</i> know something about God's essential nature,
namely, that it is unknowable and above logic. But, again, how could we know this to be
true, if God has not revealed it to us? </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The more prudent course is to accept
that God really is as he reveals himself to us in his Word. To think otherwise places undue trust on extra-biblical, human assumptions.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><b>Conclusion</b></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 107%;">In summary, although necessary truths, such as those in math and logic, have close ties with God, they pose no challenge to God's sovereignty or freedom. Necessary truths are established and upheld by God, ultimately deriving from God's very character.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> *****<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div style="mso-element: endnote-list;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><!--[if !supportEndnotes]--><br clear="all" />
</span><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<span style="font-family: arial;"><!--[endif]-->
</span><div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%;">
</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Steven Boyer and Walter Huddell III<span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;"> 2015. “Mathematical
Knowledge and Divine Mystery: Augustine and his Contemporary
Challengers”, </span><i><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in;">Christian Scholar’s Review</span></i><span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;"> 44:3, 207-236.</span><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</div>
<div id="edn2" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%;">
</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="background: white; color: black; font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">Christopher
Menzel 2001. “God and Mathematical Objects,” in Russell W. Howell and W. James
Bradley (eds.)</span><i><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="border: 1pt none windowtext; font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in;"> Mathematics in a
Postmodern Age: A Christian Perspective</span></i><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="background: white; color: black; font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, p.73.</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</div>
<div id="edn3" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%;">
</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Walter Schultz 2014. “The Actual World from Platonism
to Plans,” <i>Philosophia Christi</i> 16: 81–100.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</div>
<div id="edn4" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%;">
</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 13pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Plantinga, Alvin 1980. <i>Does
God have a Nature?</i> Marquette University Press, Milwaukee, p. 142.</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</div>
<div id="edn5" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%;">
</span><i><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Ibid</span></i><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">., p.
144.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</div>
<div id="edn6" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%;">
</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 13pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Clark, Gordon 1968. <i>The
Philosophy of Gordon Clark: A Festschrift</i>, Ronald H. Nash (ed.),
Presbyterian & Reformed, Philadelphia, pp.64-70, p. 67.</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</div>
<div id="edn7" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[7]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%;">
</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 13pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Frame, John M. 1987. <i>The
Doctrine of the Knowledge of God</i>. Phillipsburg, N.J: Presbyterian &
Reformed, p. 253.</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</div>
<div id="edn8" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[8]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%;">
</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Roy Clouser is an advocate of the <i>Cosmonomic
Philosophy. </i>For a discussion of this philosophy, as well as other Christian
philosophies of mathematics, see <span style="letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">Vern
S. Poythress 2015. </span><i>Redeeming Mathematics: A God-Centered
Approach.</i><span style="background: white; color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;"> Wheaton,
IL: Crossway Books. Appendix B. See also my post <a href="https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/3772414331480635861/3734520537380426723">Dooyeweerd's
Legacy.</a></span><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
</div>
<div id="edn9" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">[9]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 13pt; line-height: 107%;">
</span><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 13pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Clouser, Roy A. 1991. <i>The
Myth of Religious Neutrality</i>, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press,
p. 183.</span></span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 13pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">*****</span></span></p>
</div>
</div>john bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-16735810860879399902021-04-27T08:15:00.006-07:002022-06-28T17:08:49.426-07:00Review: In the Beginning<p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span>An important book,<span color="windowtext" style="text-decoration-line: none;"> <i><a href="https://www.amazon.ca/Beginning-Listening-Cornelis-Van-Dam/dp/1601788053/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1Y83WM9DWVX1W&dchild=1&keywords=in+the+beginning+van+dam&qid=1619286197&sprefix=in+the+beginning%2Caps%2C214&sr=8-1" target="_blank">In the Beginning: Listening to Genesis 1 and 2</a></i></span> (2021, Grand Rapids,
MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 371 pages) has just been published by Dr.
Cornelis van Dam, emeritus professor of Old Testament at Canadian Reformed
Theological Seminary in Hamilton, Ontario.</span></span></p><div class="MsoNormal"><a name='more'></a>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Until recently, most Christians have taken Genesis as a
reliable account of origins. Currently, however, many Reformed
theologians, influenced by extra-biblical sources such as Ancient Near Eastern
literature or evolutionary science, question this.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Is the widespread departure from the historic Reformed
understanding of Genesis justified? The focus of this book is to listen
carefully to Scripture so as to hear what God tells us about the historicity of
the early chapters of Genesis. As such, its basic presupposition is to take
seriously the integrity of the text of Genesis as part of God's word, which
must be accepted in faith. The historical intent and meaning of Genesis must be
judged by its own testimony.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijpQGrV-y10CV3IHGv737pbb8QbON_F71bWop4K1O4iTz1mYQcFr_8P-YsNvbJhvyFkhEmEDvXw7U-9KTmmqFAEZvAxT6KaRaxdJd9dMluzKU05y8vy5DT__G6QGOTipZPMb9Z4rXA-Lk/s499/vandam.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><img border="0" data-original-height="499" data-original-width="333" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijpQGrV-y10CV3IHGv737pbb8QbON_F71bWop4K1O4iTz1mYQcFr_8P-YsNvbJhvyFkhEmEDvXw7U-9KTmmqFAEZvAxT6KaRaxdJd9dMluzKU05y8vy5DT__G6QGOTipZPMb9Z4rXA-Lk/w268-h400/vandam.png" width="268" /></span></a></div><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Extra-biblical Sources</span></b><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Regard Ancient Near Eastern literature, Dr. van Dam notes
that, although there are some similarities with Genesis, there are also major
differences. Further, the similarities are readily explained as corrupted
memories of the original divine revelation about origins as found in
Genesis.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">What about science? General revelation via nature reveals
God's glory, not scientific truth. As a means to truth, science has serious
limitations, particularly concerning origins. Scripture is the primary
authority, particularly regarding origins. Science should thus make use of
the reliable information found in the Bible. Hence, if a scientific hypothesis
clashes with Scripture, Scripture should be followed.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">What Genesis 1-2 Says</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">From the context and genre of Genesis 1 and 2, as well as
Scriptural references to these, Dr. van Dam concludes that they are intended to
be taken as a record of historical events. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Here is a brief overview of some of the main points he raises in reading Genesis 1-2:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 16pt;">● </span>In the beginning, on Day 1, God created heaven and (an as
yet unformed) earth. Grammatically, textually, and contextually, the
creation days were literal days, albeit of unusual nature since the Sun was not
created until Day 4. Non-literal views, such as the Framework View (Meredith Kline) or Analogical
Days (C. John Collins), are exegetically unwarranted and undermine the historicity of Genesis 1.
Also, contrary to what John Walton wrongly contends, the verb
"to create" (Hebrew <i>bara</i>) means "to bring something into being", not
"to give an existing entity a function".</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 16pt;">● </span>The Bible reveals the existence of God's invisible, physical
heaven. Beyond that, it teaches no cosmology. It certainly does not reflect the
alleged Ancient Near Eastern cosmology of a flat earth, floating on water,
covered by a solid vault. The Bible does not view the earth as flat; the expanse (Hebrew </span><i>raqia</i><span>) of Day 4 is not said to be solid but merely refers to
the atmosphere and sky; the "waters above the expanse" are clouds;
the "waters under the earth" are just oceans.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 16pt;">● </span>The creation account leaves no room for an evolutionary
origin of creatures, particularly not of Adam and Eve. </span>Everything was created in mature form, only thousands, not billions, of years ago. The seventh day was a
normal day, wherein God declared His creation to be "very good." </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 16pt;">● </span>What was the pre-fall world like? There were as yet no thorns or thistles, which came as a result of Adam's sin. The possibility of pre-fall animal death or predation is left open but large-scale catastrophic death, such as is reflected in the fossil record, must have happened after Adam's fall. (Gen.1:29-30 [cf. Gen.9:3], which seems to imply that man and animals were originally vegetarian, is not discussed by Dr. van Dam).</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 16pt;">● </span>Although Eden was a real geographic place, its Biblical
description does not match any current topography. This is probably due to
landscape changes caused by Noah's worldwide flood.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Throughout the book, the teachings of Genesis are discussed in relation to current science.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">A proper understanding of Genesis 1-2 is essential to Christian faith, particularly given the close connection between creation and the gospel of redemption/re-creation, between the
first Adam and the second Adam.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><b>Assessment</b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Dr. Van Dam gives an excellent defense of the traditional
reading of Genesis1. He reads the text on its own terms, informed by how it is
used by the rest of Scripture, letting the exegetical chips fall where they
may. It is a refreshing contrast to many Reformed commentators who have been
unduly influenced by Ancient Near Eastern literature or evolutionary science.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">This book <span style="background-color: white;">contains</span> well-grounded responses to various
objections raised against the traditional view. It has good critiques of contrary
interpretations. There are many up-to-date references.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">I find it very readable, informative, and Biblically sound.
It will help Christians to read Genesis properly. It is a very worthwhile
contribution to the current debate, also within Reformed churches, on origins. Hopefully, it will serve to strengthen faith in our Lord and His word, in an age of ever-increasing attacks on the Christian worldview. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Heartily recommended.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">*****</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>john bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-81498378289782798992021-02-15T14:23:00.004-08:002022-06-15T09:58:57.951-07:00Why is There Something?<p class="MsoNormal"></p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial;"><strong><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="border: 1pt none windowtext; font-size: 15pt; font-weight: normal; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in;">Why is there something? There
could have been nothing - no physical objects or laws, no conscious beings, no thoughts,
no universe at all. So, why is there something, rather than nothing? </span></strong></span></p><a name='more'></a><strong><span lang="EN-GB" style="border: 1pt none windowtext; font-family: arial; font-size: 15pt; font-weight: normal; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in;"><o:p></o:p></span></strong><p></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><strong style="font-family: arial;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="border: 1pt none windowtext; font-size: 15pt; font-weight: normal; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in;">This is perhaps the biggest philosophical question. It was recently discussed on the </span></strong><b style="font-family: arial;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 15pt;"><a href="https://earthsky.org/space/why-does-universe-exist"><span color="windowtext" style="border: 1pt none windowtext; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in;">EarthSky site</span></a></span></b><strong style="font-family: arial;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN-GB" style="border: 1pt none windowtext; font-size: 15pt; font-weight: normal; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in;">, initiated by an article by British philosopher Dr. Lloyd Strickland.</span></strong></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 15pt;">A Christian
Response<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 15pt;">This question was
raised by the German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716). He contended
that everything has an explanation or a cause (<i>the</i> <i>principle of sufficient
reason</i>). So the universe as a whole must have a reason for its existence. <a href="http://www.leibniz-translations.com/theses.htm"><span color="windowtext">He
concluded</span></a> that the universe exists because God wanted to create it. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 15pt;">Since God is perfect, our universe must be the best possible universe. Our universe's present state, with all its sin and suffering, is clearly not the best possible state. But even sin and suffering have a purpose, so that our universe's unfolding history follows the best possible plan, leading to the best possible future.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 15pt;">This raises the
further question: why does God exist?</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 15pt;">Leibniz’s answer
was that God is a <i>necessary</i> being. A necessary being must exist because
it is impossible for it not to exist. Hence a necessary being such as God must
exist in all possible worlds. The non-existence of a necessary being is
inconceivable.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 15pt;">The universe, on
the other hand, is not necessary but <i>contingent</i>. It could have been different.
For example, we can conceive that the universe could just have consisted of one
galaxy, or one planet, or one rock, or one speck of dust...or nothing at all.
For any contingent object we can ask why it is the way it is and, indeed, why
it exists at all. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 15pt;">The philosopher <span color="windowtext"><a href="https://cosplayvideos.wordpress.com/2018/04/11/richard-taylor-1919-2003-the-argument-from-contingency/">Richard Taylor contends</a></span> that anything that is
contingent must depend on something else for its existence (<i>Metaphysics</i>, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2012, p.110). Ultimately, all contingent beings must derive their existence from something
that necessarily exists, something that exists by its own nature, independent
of anything else. This conclusion fits in well with Christianity, which affirms that God, a necessary Being, is the cause of the physical universe. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 15pt;">Naturalist Non-Explanations<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 15pt;">This conclusion is
not popular in our secular age, where most scientists are naturalists. Naturalists
believe that nothing exists beyond the natural world. Hence everything must
be explained solely in terms of natural laws and causes. But how can explanations
limited to things and causes <i>within</i> the natural world explain the existence of
the natural world as a <i>whole</i>?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 15pt;">Some naturalists
argue that the universe emerged from nothing. They appeal to big bang
cosmology, which traces the origin of our universe to an immense explosion, allegedly from nothing, a finite time ago. See, for example, physicist Lawrence Krauss’s book, <i>A universe from nothing: why there is something rather than
nothing </i>(New York: Free Press, 2012). He attributes the cause
of the big bang to a natural chance event in a pre-existing quantum field. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 15pt;">However, Krauss’s universe emerges, not from nothing, but from a pre-existing quantum field. We
could conceive of the non-existence of such a field. So why did this field
exist, rather than nothing? Krauss fails to address that question, and hence his
book fails to live up to its grandiose title.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 15pt;">Similarly,
attributing the cause of the universe to strings, mathematical points, or the
multiverse just raises the question as to what caused strings, points, or the
multiverse.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 15pt;">Other naturalists try
to avoid attributing a cause to the universe by postulating that it has existed
from eternity. But this still leaves the question as to why it has always
existed. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 15pt;">The problem is
that naturalism lacks a necessary being that can provide the ultimate cause of
our universe. Hence the most popular naturalist response is that we must simply
accept the universe as a brute fact that has no ultimate explanation. This
dismisses the question but is not very intellectually satisfying.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 15pt;">As a final option, Dr.
Strickland suggests that any possible universe may have an innate tendency
to exist, and that the universe with the greatest tendency to exist will bring
itself into existence from non-existence. He concludes, </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 15pt;"></span></p><blockquote><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 15pt;">“Weird? Yes. But that
shouldn’t put us off. After all, an extraordinary philosophical question might
just require an extraordinary answer.”</span></blockquote><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 15pt;"><o:p></o:p></span><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 15pt;">But this is just a desperate grasping at straws. A possible universe exists merely as an idea. An idea can exist only in a mind, and an idea is inert unless actualized by a mind. Hence Strickland’s last hope works only within a theist view, where
God conceives all possible universes and actualizes the best one.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 15pt;">Why am I?<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 15pt;">Inevitably, questions
about existence (“metaphysics”) lead to questions about knowledge (“epistemology”). How do I <i>know</i> that something exists? </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 15pt;">Rene Descartes (1596-1650) famously contended that the only
thing I can know for certain is my own conscious thoughts: “I think, therefore
I am.” Thus, the deeper question is “why I am <i>conscious</i> of something
rather than nothing?” Or simply, “why does my self-conscious self exist?”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 15pt;">This is surely the
most basic and pressing question everyone must face: <b>why</b> do <b>I</b>
exist? This concerns not just the ultimate <i>cause</i> of my existence, but
also the ultimate <i>purpose</i> of my existence.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 15pt;">As to my ultimate
cause, we must ask, what came first: mind or matter? Which is more basic?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 15pt;">According to the
naturalist, matter came first. The cause of life is a purely accidental result
of random material events. I am an essentially material being, existing for no
purpose in a purposeless universe, and ceasing to exist when I die. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 15pt;">Further, how can concrete
matter give rise to immaterial thoughts? This is a great unsolved problem. Naturalists
assume that my conscious self somehow “emerges”, mysteriously, from my brain. However, </span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 20px;">my brain operates according to physical laws, whereas </span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 15pt;">my train of thought is determined by logical and moral “oughts”. One cannot reduce a physical “is” to
a logical or moral “ought”. Hence mind cannot be reduced to brain. Purposeless
matter cannot generate a purposeful, creative mind.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 15pt;">Consequently, many
naturalist philosophers and scientists deny that we really have a mind. According
to Francis Crick, who discovered DNA, my sense of inner self and my conscious
thought life, are just illusions caused by my brain neurons. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 15pt;">Such blatant denial of the
one basic fact of which I can be certain-- my inner I-- is a drastic step that no one can live out in practice. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 15pt;">The Bible places mind first: “in the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1). God <i>spoke</i>
the universe into being (Genesis 1) and continues to uphold it by his <i>word</i> of power
(Hebrews 1:3). </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 15pt;">Moreover, history unfolds according to God’s purposeful plan, and everything
is made for a purpose (Prov.16:4). As the Westminster Catechism asserts
(Question1), my chief purpose is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 15pt;">Tragically, </span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 15pt;">many scientists today prefer to deny the self rather than to practice the self-denial inherent in serving God.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">*****</p>john bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-68473681277372757622021-01-26T17:04:00.000-08:002021-01-26T17:04:48.309-08:00How big tech became big brother<p> <span style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #666666; font-family: arial;">A relevant video by David Wood (found on the Triablogue site), raising concerns that big tech (Youtube, Google, Twitter, Amazon, etc.), like mainstream media, is increasingly censoring Christian views while promoting leftist ideology.<a name='more'></a> </span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2F1yvxy1jUQ" width="320" youtube-src-id="2F1yvxy1jUQ"></iframe></div><br /><span style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #666666; font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p></p>john bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-79076016255058870382020-11-24T12:20:00.002-08:002021-05-06T10:15:57.495-07:00Useful Sites<span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span>Here are some sites that I find useful and check regularly. Please inform me of any dead links, or sites that should be added.<a name='more'></a></span><b><br /></b></span><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><b>Reformed</b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif">● </span><a href="https://creationwithoutcompromise.com/" target="_blank">Creation without Compromise</a>. The editors, </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333a42;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Dr. Ted VanRaalte, Rev. Jim Witteveen, Mr. Jon Dykstra, Dr. Wes Bredenhof) are Canadian Reformed and Free Reformed (Australia).</span></span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #333a42; font-family: arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #333a42; font-family: arial;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif">● </span><a href="https://reformedperspective.ca/" target="_blank">Reformed Perspective</a>. Canadian Reformed. Articles, news, and on-line magazine.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #333a42;">● </span><a href="https://yinkahdinay.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">Yinkahdinah</a>.<span> Blog of Dr. Wes Bredenhof. Mostly on theology and church (Australia).</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span><br /></span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #333a42;">● </span><a href="https://proregno.com/" target="_blank">Pro Regno</a><span>. Blog of Rev. Slabbert LeCornu. Afrikaans. Mostly on theology and church (South Africa).</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span><br /></span><span style="color: black;"><span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #333a42;">● </span><a href="http://www.eeninwaarheid.info/" target="_blank">Een in waarheid.</a> Concerned members and ex-members of </span></span><span><i><span style="background-color: white;">De Gereformeerde</span><span style="background-color: white;"> Kerken V</span></i><span style="background-color: white;"><i>rijgemaakt</i>. Dutch. Mostly theology and church (Netherlands).</span></span><br /><span><br /></span><b>Creationist Sites</b><br /><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #333a42;">● </span><a href="https://crev.info/" target="_blank">Creation Evolution Headlines</a>.<span> Edited by David Coppedge. Very good, almost daily, articles and critique on current scientific news.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #333a42;">● </span><a href="https://answersingenesis.org/answers/research-journal/" target="_blank">Answers in Genesis - Research Journal</a>.<span> Good quality articles (free).</span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #333a42;">● </span><a href="https://creation.com/" target="_blank">Creation</a>.<span> Creation Ministries International. Has some online articles, but the best articles are in their (paid) </span><a href="https://creation.com/magazines" target="_blank">Journal of Creation</a><span>.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #333a42;">● </span><a href="https://bsg.clubexpress.com/content.aspx?sl=1594786160" target="_blank">Creation Biology Society</a>. Has on-line <i>Journal of Creation Theology and Science.</i></span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><i><br /></i></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #333a42;">● </span><a href="https://blog.drwile.com/" target="_blank">Proslogion</a>.<span> Blog of Dr. Jay Wile (Ph. D. nuclear chemistry). Posts almost weekly.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #333a42;">● </span><a href="http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Todd's Blog</a>.<span> Blog of Dr Todd Wood (Ph.D. biology). Posts every 1-2 weeks mostly on biology.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #333a42;">● </span><a href="http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/" target="_blank">Biblical Geology</a><span>. Blog of Dr. Tas Walker (Ph.D. geology). Posts every few months on geology.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #333a42;">● </span><a href="https://biblescienceforum.com/" target="_blank">Bible Science Forum</a><span style="font-family: arial;">. Blog of Dr John Hartnett (Ph.D. physics). Posts almost weekly on cosmology, physics, and (more recently) covid.(Australia)</span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></span></div></span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #333a42;">● </span><a href="https://www.biblicalcreationtrust.org/index.html" target="_blank">Biblical Creation Trust</a>. (UK) site of Paul Garner, Dr. Stephen Lloyd, and others. Has useful articles (free).</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span><br /></span><b>Dutch Creationist</b><br /><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #333a42;">● </span><a href="https://logos.nl/" target="_blank">Logos Instituut</a><span>. Daily articles.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span><b>German Creationist</b></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #333a42;">● <a href="https://www.wort-und-wissen.org" target="_blank">Wort und Wissen</a>.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #333a42;">●</span><span style="color: #333a42;"> </span><span style="color: #333a42;"><a href="https://www.genesisnet.info/" target="_blank">Genesis Net</a>.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #333a42;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><b>Intelligent Design</b><br /><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #333a42;">● </span><a href="https://evolutionnews.org/" target="_blank">Evolution News</a><span>. Run by the </span><i>Discovery Institute</i><span>. Daily commentary on scientific news.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #333a42;">● </span><a href="https://uncommondescent.com/" target="_blank">Uncommon Descent.</a><span> Daily commentary and discussion by subscribers on scientific news from ID perspective.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span><br /></span><b>Political and Social Issues</b></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #333a42;">● </span><span><a href="https://arpacanada.ca/" target="_blank">Association for Reformed Political Action</a>. Good Reformed critique of current (Canadian) political issues.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #333a42;">● </span><a href="https://winteryknight.com/" target="_blank">Wintery Knight</a><span>. Blog of Old earth creationist, but mostly comments on social and political issues in the US from a conservative, libertarian perspective.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span><br /></span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #333a42;">● </span><a href="http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/" target="_blank">The Hump of the Camel</a><span>. Blog of UK Dr Jon Harvey (MD). Theistic evolutionist along the lines of Warfield, but has very worthwhile posts on social issues, particularly in the UK.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #333a42;">● </span><span><a href="https://www.lifesitenews.com/" target="_blank">Lifesite News</a>. Conservative Roman Catholic site but good critiques of current (Canadian) social issues such as abortion, gender, etc.<br /></span></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">*****</span></div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div style="margin: 0in; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div></blockquote><div style="margin: 0in; text-align: left;"><br /></div></div></div>john bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-4823166589613189462020-10-14T08:25:00.000-07:002020-10-14T08:25:07.050-07:00Finding Adam<p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0in;">The
Dutch scholar Dr. Willem J. Ouweneel </span><span style="font-size: 18.6667px;">defends the traditional Biblical Adam, against attempts to combine Adam with human evolution, in his recent book</span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0in;"> <i><a href="https://www.ezrainstitute.ca/resource-library/books/adam-where-are-you/" target="_blank">Adam, Where Are You? </a></i></span><b style="text-indent: 0in;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;"><a href="https://www.ezrainstitute.ca/resource-library/books/adam-where-are-you/" target="_blank">—</a></span></b><i style="text-indent: 0in;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;"><a href="https://www.ezrainstitute.ca/resource-library/books/adam-where-are-you/" target="_blank">And Why This Matters: A Theological
Evaluation of the Evolutionist Hermeneutic</a> </span></i><i style="text-indent: 0in;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt;">(Jordan
Station, Canada: </span></i><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0in;">Paideia
Press, 2018, 480 pages).</span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0in;"> </span></p><a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0in;">This
book addresses the question: if we believe human evolution, can we still retain
the biblical message of Genesis 1-3? can we still salvage orthodox
Christianity? Ouweneel shows that the answer is NO.</span><p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt;">Background<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt;">Dr. Ouweneel relates how, back in the 1970s, he was an active creationist in the Netherlands. At that time he helped to set up a creationist magazine <i>Bijbel en Wetenschap</i> and an educational institution the <i>Evangelische Hogeschool</i>. I first met with Ouweneel in 1984, when I visited the EH in Amersfoort, the Netherlands; I contributed a couple of articles to his magazine.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt;"> </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt;">Yet, over the years, Ouweneel’s interests shifted, and he became less sure of origins. In his book <i>De Schepping van God</i> (2008) he wrote that, since science made it no longer possible to believe in a 6-day creation, he now opted for a figurative (literary-framework) view of Genesis 1. As to the age of the earth, and the extent that evolution was involved, he became a self-described “origins agnostic.” </span></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0in;"><br /></span></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0in;">I noticed his changing views on Genesis myself in subsequent meetings with him and attributed this to his coming under the influence of Dooyeweerdian philosophy, which tends to limit biblical authority to the "faith" sphere, rather than applying to all academic disciplines. </span></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt;">Over time, the magazine (renamed <i>Ellips</i> in 2001, and <i>Sophie</i> in 2011) and the institution he helped to found both left creationism behind, becoming open to theistic evolution. Indeed, over the last 40 years creationism has not fared well in the Netherlands. Ouweneel notes that he currently knows of only 6 Dutch people with doctorates in the natural sciences who remain critical of the general theory of evolution.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt;"><b>Summary</b> </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt;">Happily, he relates how his eyes were re-opened upon reading recent books by theistic evolutionists (particularly the formerly conservative Dutch Reformed theologian Dr. Gijsbert van den Brink), and noting the huge cost to orthodox Christianity. His</span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0in;"> prime concern is that theistic evolutionists are no longer reading the Bible on
its own terms but are applying a new hermeneutic, where evolutionary science
dictates how we should read Genesis. <o:p></o:p></span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 18.6667px; text-indent: 0in;"> </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 18.6667px; text-indent: 0in;">Scripture is made to say the opposite of what it actually says.</span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt;">Dr. Ouweneel
contends that Scripture should be allowed to speak for itself, and that Scripture should </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0in;">interpret Scripture. Doing that, we find that Genesis 1-3 tells us about events that really happened, and about how
they happened. This is seen most clearly by the way that the New Testament
treats the events of creation and the Fall. Paul and Jesus, in particular, refer
to a recent creation, the direct creation of Adam and Eve, in a righteous state
as the image of God, and an historical Fall that greatly affected all humans,
as well as the rest of creation. </span></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0in;"><br /></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0in;">For example, Jesus placed Adam at the “beginning of creation” (Mark 10:6; cf Matt. 19:8), Satan was “a murderer from the beginning” (John 8:44, referring to the time of the Fall), Abel’s blood was shed “at the foundation of the world” (Luke 11:50-51). Ouweneel concludes,</span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 18.6667px; text-indent: 14.6667px;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 18.6667px; text-indent: 14.6667px;">"Apparently, for Jesus this was self-evident; there were not billions of years between Genesis 1 and Genesis 3, i.e., between the creation of the world and the Fall of humanity—not even a few years...</span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 11pt;">. This is a well-known argument of young-earth creationists,</span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 11pt;"> </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 11pt;">the power of which is hard to evade…“</span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 11pt;"> (p.351)</span></span></blockquote><p></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt;">Ouweneel asks advocates of Adam as an evolved hominid: if God selected some
hominids from a much larger population in order to enter into a covenant
relationship with them, why did he not simply tells us, like he told us of his
selection of Noah and Abram. Why, instead, did he speak in Genesis as though he
had created Adam and Eve directly, without any other humans around?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 18.6667px;">Further problems with an evolved Adam are how to account for the acquisition of an eternal soul and the features of God's image (e.g., uprightness) via evolution, how Adam's fallen image was passed on to his contemporaries, why death is a punishment for sin if death is needed by evolution to create man, etc. Ouweneel shows that many theological issues pertaining to the gospel are at stake</span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: 18.6667px;"><b>Some Concerns</b></span></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt;">Dr. Ouweneel
rightly claims that it is inconsistent to let the Bible trump mainstream
science regarding Christ’s resurrection but not on origins. Yet Ouweneel seems to be inconsistent himself in a few places. </span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt;">1. First, he chides Dutch Reformed churches for making an issue of women ordination, arguing that this involves no new hermeneutic. Yet, in the churches in question, both women ordination and theistic evolution are clearly driven by the same drive to re-interpret the Bible in terms of contemporary culture.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="left" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt;">2. Second, Ouweneel’s prime target
throughout the book is the notion that Adam was an evolved hominid. He claims that </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 18.6667px;">his arguments leave room for old earth creationism, altho</span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0in;">ugh he
prefers young earth creationism. Yet, since he cites</span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 18.6667px;"> Jesus in support of a recent creation, this must more than merely a personal preference.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 18.6667px;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0in;">Many of his other</span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0in;"> arguments apply as much to old earth creationism (OEC) as to an evolved Adam (EA). OEC and EA both accept mainstream geology and paleontology, with its millions-of-years chronology and fossil dates, as basically correct. Both agree that (soul-less) human look-a-likes existed before, and along with, Adam. They differ primarily in that EA posits that Adam was a God-chosen or transformed hominid, whereas OEC posits that God made Adam from dust. </span><span face="Arial, sans-serif" style="font-size: 18.6667px;">Both agree that Adam's Fall resulted in no physical changes in nature, other than to Adam's spiritual condition; fallen Adam was physically and genetically similar to his pre-Fall hominid contemporaries.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0in;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0in;">Hence both face the same theological problems of death before the Fall, transferring God's image and original sin to Adam's contemporaries, etc. OEC may perhaps take Genesis 1-3 somewhat less figuratively than EA, but only marginally so.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0in;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0in;">3. Finally, </span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0in;">Dr. Ouweneel thinks highly of Herman Dooyeweerd and his philosophical system (sometimes called <i>Reformational</i> philosophy). Although Dooyeweerd had many perceptive philosophical insights, unfortunately he did not believe that the Bible contained any useful information for history or science. He rejected the view that the creation days happened in real time, and was open to the possibility of evolution. Most of his followers have bought into theistic evolution (s</span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0in;">ee my post </span><a href="https://bylogos.blogspot.com/2010/09/dooyeweerds-legacy.html" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0in;" target="_blank">Dooyeweerd's Legacy</a>)<span style="font-family: arial;">. </span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0in;">In North America, </span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0in;">in the Christian Reformed Church (and to a lesser extent in the Canadian Reformed Church) Reformational philosophy has been a pertinent factor in </span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 18.6667px; text-indent: 0in;">promoting theistic evolution, and </span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0in;">eroding confidence in the traditional reading of Scripture. </span><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: large; text-indent: 0in;">Yet Ouweneel overlooks this negative aspect of Reformational philosophy.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0in;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0in;">In conclusion, this book makes a very good case for treating the Bible as Gods' Word, letting it speak for itself, and upholding the traditional reading of Genesis against evolutionary distortions.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-align: center; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0in;">*****</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 14pt; text-indent: 0in;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in; text-indent: 0in;"><br /></p>john bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-48417530768496046202020-09-18T12:54:00.004-07:002021-06-19T19:31:09.911-07:00Hijacking John Calvin – More Pro Rege Polemics <div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: left;"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span style="background: white;">A few months ago,
in my post</span> <a href="https://bylogos.blogspot.com/2020/04/pro-rege-polemics_24.html">Pro
Rege Polemics</a>, I discussed a dispute about science and the Bible
in <i>Pro Rege</i>, a Dordt University publication. Since then two more
contributions continue the debate.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <a name='more'></a>
<o:p><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><b>Brief Recap</b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">The exchange was initiated by an
article by Dr Sacha Walicord and Ben Hayes contending that, since science is
worldview dependent, <span style="background: white;">Christian scientists
should work from a Bible-based Christian worldview. They lamented
that </span>many Christian scientists use the same naturalistic, anti-Biblical
presuppositions as secular scientists, with a corresponding rejection of the
plain reading of Scripture.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">In response, Dr Arnold Sikkema
denied there is a "<i>plain
reading of Scripture</i>", a notion he deemed to be the main cause of
science and faith controversies.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">To this, Dr. Jurgen-Burkhard Klautke<span style="background: white;"> noted </span>that the disputed portion is
primarily Gen.1-11, which, Scripture itself always takes it in its plain,
literal sense. This was the dominant view of most Christians, including the
Church Fathers and the Reformers.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><b>Defending Plain Reading</b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">In the June issue of Pro Rege, Dr
Walicord <a href="https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3093&context=pro_rege">responds</a> to
Dr Sikkema’s letter. He observes that, for meaningful communication, any text
must have a “plain meaning”, even Sikkema’s own letter.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Of course, let me add, everyone
interprets the Bible in terms of exegetical presuppositions. But these should
honor the Bible as God’s inerrant Word. The Reformers stressed that (1) we
should take the most obvious, literal sense unless internal Biblical evidence
indicates otherwise, and (2) Scripture should interpret Scripture. Applying
such principles, we get the “plain reading” of Scripture. At dispute is whether
we should add a further principle: (3) Scripture should not contradict alleged "well-established scientific facts".<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Walicord views Sikkema’s letter as
symptomatic of a serious widespread problem within the Reformed community with
its ever-increasing liberal and anti-biblical bias. He cautions: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">“I
am afraid that we, as historically Reformed institutions of higher learning,
are in the process of falling victim to a mindset that has a very low view of
the Word of God and a very high view of man...”<o:p></o:p></span></blockquote><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">“A
related and alarming occurrence is that anybody who even begins to challenge
this theologically liberal mindset will immediately be attacked, ridiculed, and
have his reputation tarnished, if not destroyed. This has repeatedly been my
own experience…<o:p></o:p></span></blockquote><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">“Dr.
Sikkema’s ad hominem attack is a microcosm of the atmosphere that I fear proves
that academic freedom and respectful discourse have been for a large part
deserted in our colleges.”<o:p></o:p></span></blockquote><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Other
conservative Reformed academics, including myself, can testify to this.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<h2><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Questioning
Plain Reading<o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">In the latest (September) issue of
Pro Rege, <a href="https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3106&context=pro_rege" target="_blank">Dr John Zwart</a>, emeritus professor of physics at Dordt, defends
Sikkema. He wonders how well Walicord & Hayes’ methodology for Reformed
science works out in practice. How should we handle a discrepancy between the
plain words of Scripture and science?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Rather than dealing directly with
creation/evolution issues of Gen.1-11, Zwart appeals to historical precedents
for letting science change our reading of Scripture.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">First, there was the Copernican
challenge to geocentricity. Zwart notes that the plain words of Scripture are
geocentric rather than heliocentric. Yet most Christians, even creationists,
now interpret those Scriptural passages non-literally, due to scientific
evidence of the earth’s motion.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Second, Zwart suggests we look to
John Calvin for Reformed guiding principles regarding science and Scripture.
Calvin accepted the science of his day. When that science contradicted with the
plain sense of Scripture Calvin held that Moses <i>accommodated</i> his
teaching to the limited understanding of his readers, used popular phenomenal
language rather than scientific terminology; Moses did not intend to teach
astronomy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">For example, Scripture refers to
the moon as a “<i>great
light</i>” (Gen. 1:15), whereas astronomers know that Saturn is intrinsically
brighter than the moon. Thus, Calvin held that Moses merely used common
language of how things appear to humans on earth, rather than how they really
are.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Zwart concludes:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">“The
plain words of Scripture are not necessarily the literal words of Scripture. We
need to humbly recognize that we interpret Scripture and can use our God-given
insights into the structure of the creation, including those from the sciences,
to understand parts of it. That does not mean that we simply ignore Scripture’s
words when we have a conflict, nor do we only consider the literal words of
Scripture, but rather that we need to carefully, prayerfully, and thoughtfully
look for what God wants us to understand."</span></blockquote>
<h2><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Would
Calvin be a theistic evolutionist?<o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">So what is Zwart’s take-home
message? How <i>should</i> we reconcile Gen.1-11 with current
science? The implication is that, as Calvin interpreted the Bible to harmonize
with the science of his day, we should likewise update the “plain sense” of
Scripture to accommodate evolutionary science.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Notably, Zwart ignores Calvin’s actual interpretation of Genesis: a literal 6-day creation, at about 4000 BC, the direct creation of Adam from literal dust, natural evil as a result of Adam’s Fall, a global Flood, etc. </span>Is all this to be dismissed as mere reflection of Calvin’s naive acceptance of the erroneous historical science of his day? Are we to presume that Moses did not intend to teach history either?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">What is left unsaid by Zwart is
explicitly affirmed by the two Calvin scholars he cites. Zwart recommends Davis
A. Young’s <i>John
Calvin and the Natural World. </i>Young waves aside Calvin's belief in a young
earth: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">“Calvin’s
contemporaries believed the traditional views. Should he have been any
different? ... In his day, of course, there was no recognition by natural
philosophers of the geological evidence that is available to us today that
compels acceptance of an extremely ancient Earth.” (p. 159)<o:p></o:p></span></blockquote><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Presumably, were Calvin alive today, he would have read Genesis differently. Young appeals to Calvin’s
accommodation theory to justify non-literal views of Genesis:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">"… it
seems to me that the appropriate time to consider invoking the principle [of
accommodation] is where Scripture includes a statement about the natural world
that is clearly contrary to firmly established and empirically verified
knowledge…. If the Bible really seems to suggest that the Earth is young, then
it may be that Scripture has merely accommodated itself to that belief. In my
judgment judicious application of Calvin’s principle of accommodation would go
a long way toward solving some of the problems concerning the relation of
science to the Bible.” (p. 230) <o:p></o:p></span></blockquote><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Zwart’s other source, Alister E.
McGrath’s <em>A Life of John Calvin, </em>goes
even further:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">“[For
Calvin, the] emancipation of scientific observation and theory from crudely
literalist interpretations of scripture took place… in the insistence upon the
accommodated character of biblical language…. The biblical stories of the
creation and Fall (Genesis 1-3) are accommodated to the abilities and horizons
of a relatively simply and unsophisticated people; they are not intended to be
taken as <em>literal </em>representations
of reality. (pp. 255- 257)<o:p></o:p></span></blockquote><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Thus Calvin’s theory of accommodation,
applied by Calvin in a very limited fashion, leads to a wholesale rejection of
the historicity of Gen.1-11. McGrath seems to think that, were Calvin alive
today, he would be an evolutionary theist, like McGrath.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">A detailed rebuttal of Young and
McGrath’s gross distortion of Calvin’s high view of Scripture is given by Rev. Erik
Guichelaar, “<a href="https://www.prca.org/prtj/nov2010.pdf">Creation,
Providence and Divine Accommodation: John Calvin and Modern Theories of
Evolution</a>”. Guichelaar disparages Young and McGrath’s attempt to elicit
Calvin’s blessing on their evolutionary rewrite of Genesis: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">“Rather
than humbly accepting as truth what the Bible clearly sets forth, and
submitting to it, these men, and others who follow their teachings, are more
concerned with making the Bible amenable to modern, so-called scientific
theories, and compliant with the speculations and philosophies of man-centered,
God-denying academia. And these men want to associate Calvin, the great
Reformer and defender of the truth of God’s holy Word, with themselves. One can
be sure, however, that Calvin was not such a man as to entertain such thoughts,
nor would he be if he were alive today.” <o:p></o:p></span></blockquote><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Guichelaar concludes:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">"…Calvin
would certainly have rejected as heretical and repulsive the theories of
evolution which we as Reformed believers are faced with today. His doctrine of
creation allows nothing but a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2.
His understanding of divine providence emphasizes that everything that occurs
is governed by God’s fatherly hand, so that nothing can happen by chance or
accident. And his notion of divine accommodation can be understood only as
maintaining and defending the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2 as historical
fact."<o:p></o:p></span></blockquote><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Rev. Angus Stewart, in “<a href="http://static.squarespace.com/static/5359681be4b04d0a00bdd9ad/5398a5fde4b0172c0d398003/5398a619e4b0172c0d39866d/1402512921290/Calvin%20versus%20Darwin%201.pdf?format=original">Calvin
versus Darwin</a>,” offers a similar assessment. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial;">In his book-long study <i>Divinity Compromised: A
study of Divine Accommodation in the Thought of John Calvin</i> (2006), Jon
Balserak finds that Calvin's accommodation involved no error, and no erosion of biblical authority (pp. 163-168). Calvin never considered the Bible to be
accommodated to erroneous science or historical traditions. Nevertheless, <o:p></o:p></span><span style="font-family: arial;">Calvin’s theory of accommodation set a dangerous precedent that is easily abused.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Interestingly, in the preface to
his <i>Commentary on Genesis</i>, Calvin warns of those who “<i>turn and twist the
Scripture to their purpose, and make of it a nose of wax</i>”, which might be aptly applied to McGrath, Young, and their ilk. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<h2><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Doing
Science Properly<o:p></o:p></span></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">So, how <i>should</i> Christians
do science? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Let’s consider Zwart’s examples. Regarding
the Moon as a “great light” (Gen.1:15), this concerns its assigned function “to
give light upon the <i>earth</i>”
(Gen. 1:17). The plain meaning suffices: no need to resort to accommodation or
popular language. Genesis 1 is written from God’s perspective: “God saw…”. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Even so, popular,
phenomenal language is no less true than scientific terminology. Perhaps it is
even more true, since science must conform to observations, which remain valid
while scientific theories change.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Nor is there any need to explain
away Biblical geocentricity. Science deals only with <i>relative</i> motion,
so that <span lang="EN">any
absolute standard of rest must be based on <i>extra-scientific</i> philosophical
or theological factors. See my post <a href="http://bylogos.blogspot.com/2011/07/moving-earth.html">A
Moving Earth?</a> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span lang="EN">Reformed theologians such as Gijsbert Voet (1588-1676) and Francis Turretin (1623-1687) rejected Copernicus because they realized capitulation would render Scripture hostage to science, nulling Scriptural authority. Their forebodings were proven valid, for the church's 17th century surrender to "science" on Copernicanism is persistently used to induce its similar 21st century submission to evolution.</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Back to the main issue of
creation/evolution. This is primarily a question of <i><b>history</b></i>. In science, <b><i>observations are basic</i></b>,
whereas theories, devised to explain the observations, are secondary. Scientists cannot directly observe the distant past. Hence, especially in the historical sciences, reliable eye-witness
accounts always trump scientific theorizing. Since the Bible is God’s inerrant
Word, shouldn’t its historical accounts count as impeccable eye-witness
statements? Surely, then, any viable history
or historical science must submit to the Biblical givens.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">What about God’s revelation through
nature? Our knowledge of that is limited to what we can <i>presently</i> observe of
nature. Such knowledge tells us nothing about the distant past, including
Biblical history. Indeed, challenges to Biblical history come from mainstream (<i>i.e.,</i> Bible-denying)
scientific theorizing, which is not to be mistaken for divine revelation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">In sum, Walicord, Hayes, and
Klautke rightly assert that historical science should give due weight to what the Bible
plainly says about history, constructing its theories accordingly. That, I
maintain, is the genuine Reformed approach to science, rather than altering the
Biblical witness to fit current mainstream science.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">*****</span><o:p></o:p></p></o:p></div></div>john bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-73850126761147647122020-07-21T16:38:00.005-07:002021-09-21T20:24:27.944-07:00Seeing Through Smoke<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-family: arial;"><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif" style="color: black;"><span face=""arial" , sans-serif" style="color: black; font-size: 13pt;">Here is a new book very relevant to recent events: <b><i><a href="http://www.jongarvey.co.uk/download/pdf/Seeing%20Through%20Smoke.pdf"><span style="color: blue;">Seeing Through Smoke</span></a>: Living the Truth in an Age of Deception</i></b> (2020), <span style="background: white;">by </span>Dr<span style="background: white;"> Jon Garvey</span>. This book (pdf) can be downloaded free.</span></span><br />
</span><div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif" style="color: black;"><span face=""arial" , sans-serif" style="color: black; font-size: 13pt;"><br /></span></span> <span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif" style="color: black;"><span face=""arial" , sans-serif" style="color: black; font-size: 13pt;">Dr Garvey is a retired M.D., living in Devon, UK, and an elder in the local Baptist church. His blog <a href="http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/"><span style="color: blue;">The Hump of the Camel</span></a> is worth reading. He writes well, and has a very inciteful commentary on current cultural movements and events. [I must caution, however, that I believe him to be off the mark regarding origins, where he tries to fit the biblical Adam into evolutionary history].</span></span><br />
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif" style="color: black;"><span face=""arial" , sans-serif" style="color: black; font-size: 13pt;"><br /></span></span> <span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif" style="color: black;"><span face=""arial" , sans-serif" style="color: black; font-size: 13pt;">His book is an interesting analysis of current times, particularly in the UK. Garvey contends that we live in an age of deception, where governments, business, and media use methods of deceptive propaganda similar to those used by Hitler and Stalin. His aim:</span></span><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif" style="color: black;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 5pt;"><blockquote class="tr_bq"><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif" style="color: black; font-family: arial;">"I try to show not only <i><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in;">what </span></i><span style="background: white;">deceptions are prevalent now, but </span><i><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in;">how </span></i><span style="background: white;">they deceive through the techniques of propaganda, psychological intimidation and so on. And my solutions, such as they are, are specifically intended to get </span><i><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in;">Christians </span></i><span style="background: white;">thinking about their unique role as the Church of Christ, “the pillar and foundation of truth” to the world. Unfortunately, up until now it seems the churches have been more part of the problem than the solution by their wholesale capitulation to the evils (disguised as good, in Satan’s age-old way) of the age."</span></span></blockquote>
</div>
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif" style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: arial;"> </span><div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span face=""arial" , sans-serif" style="color: black; font-family: arial; font-size: 13pt;">The main theme of this book can be summarized:</span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span face=""arial" , sans-serif" style="color: black; font-family: arial; font-size: 13pt;">• Scripture warns of a program of supernatural deception, culminating in a climactic delusion surrounding the antichrist of the end times.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span face=""arial" , sans-serif" style="color: black; font-family: arial; font-size: 13pt;"> • There has probably never been a period of more widespread deception, and the ability to generate and promulgate it everywhere, than today. </span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: arial;"><span face=""arial" , sans-serif" style="color: black; font-size: 13pt;">• Therefore Christians need to be alert to the possibility that the two are related, and consider carefully how to maintain the truth of Christ’s kingdom in the face of both attack and seduction.</span><br />
<span face=""arial" , sans-serif" style="color: black; font-size: 13pt;"><br /></span> <span face=""arial" , sans-serif" style="color: black; font-size: 13pt;">Dr Garvey has a useful discussion about cultural Marxism, and its "long march" through the institutions, where it now controls most universities and media. He shows its relation to the LGBT movement, environmentalism, Black Lives Matter, etc., and how it is utterly opposed to Christianity, and Christian views on marriage, family, etc. Cultural Marxism fits in well with post-modernity, for it is not concerned with truth, but with power to impose its ideology. To that end, society suppresses scientific facts (e.g., regarding global warming, "gay" genes, racial statistics, etc.) that don't fit its agenda.</span><br />
<span face=""arial" , sans-serif" style="color: black; font-size: 13pt;"><br /></span> <span face=""arial" , sans-serif" style="color: black; font-size: 13pt;">The final section of the book suggests what kind of strategies churches, and individual believers may take to maintain their witness to the Truth of Christ in the face of Satan’s deceptions. He warns,</span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 5pt;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="font-family: arial;">
"We must be aware that it is the purpose, conscious or unconscious, of modern media to divert our attention from deep truth and make us passive consumers of both material goods and packaged information. It is against that whole mindset that today’s Christians need to learn to rebel."</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: arial;"><span face=""arial" , sans-serif" style="color: black; font-size: 13pt;">In response, Christians must become immersed in God's truth, by studying his word and living out a biblical worldview, and thus promoting the gospel.</span><br />
<span face=""arial" , sans-serif" style="color: black; font-size: 13pt;"><br /></span> <span face=""arial" , sans-serif" style="color: black; font-size: 13pt;">In sum, I strongly recommend this book to Christians, who should be discerning, in an age of propaganda, and ready to defend the Truth.</span></span></div>
<div align="center" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span face=""arial" , sans-serif" style="color: black; font-family: arial; font-size: 13pt;">*****</span></div>
<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike></span></div>
john bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-89529155519850878942020-07-20T11:26:00.000-07:002020-07-20T11:26:40.176-07:00Some thoughts on Dr Packer<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">James Innell Packer recently died on July 17, 2020, at age 93. He was one of the most influential theologians of the last century, perhaps best known for his two earliest books, <i>Fundamentalism and the Word of God </i>(1958) and <i>Knowing God</i> (1973). He was also general editor of the <i>English Standard Version</i> of the Bible. </span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">His death occasioned many positive reviews of his life and work. Indeed, much of his writing is well worth reading for Christians, particularly the two above mentioned books. Dr Packer deserves to be remembered also for his firm opposition to same-sex marriage.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Yet there are also a few clouds. Early on, Dr Packer worked closely with Dr Martyn LLoyd-Jones. Both believed in the full authority of an inerrant Bible, and the necessity of Christians living this out consistently.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But Dr Packer was himself inconsistent. First, there was his support of <span style="background: white; color: black;">evangelical ecumenism. In 1970 he co-authored (with two Anglo-Catholics) <i>Growing into Union, </i>which many evangelicals felt conceded too much biblical ground on critical doctrinal issues. This led to a break between Lloyd-Jones and Packer.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background: white; color: black;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background: white; color: black;">Later, in 1994, Dr Packer’s supported </span><i>Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT): Toward a Common Mission. </i>He<i> </i>seemed to make light of key biblical doctrines, such as justification by faith alone. ECT was strongly opposed by many Reformed theologians, including R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Second, Dr Packer was inconsistent also regarding biblical authority. <span style="background: white; color: black;">Unlike Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Packer rejected the plain reading of Genesis 1, which he considered to be disproven by science. </span>H<span style="background: white; color: black;">e was willing to re-interpret Genesis to</span> make room for theistic evolution. In 1978 he wrote:</span><br />
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and I maintain it in print, but exegetically I cannot see that anything Scripture says, in the first chapters of Genesis or elsewhere, bears on the biological theory of evolution one way or the other."[<span style="background: white; color: black;">Packer, J.I., </span><i>The Evangelical Anglican Identity Problem</i><span style="background: white; color: black;"> (Oxford: Oxford-Latimer House, 1978), 5.]</span></span></blockquote>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="background: white; color: black;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">He opted for a literary view of Genesis 1; Genesis 2 & 3 he took as real history, but history told in a symbolic way. For example, Packer held that the point of the story of Eve created out of Adam was to tells us theological truths (e.g., regarding marriage), rather than to give us facts about origins. For Packer's view on Genesis, see <a href="https://thechristianworldview.blogspot.com/2010/01/j-i-packer-lecture-on-problems-in-gen-1.html">this transcribed lecture</a>. Dr Packer endorsed several books promoting theistic evolution.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">From 1979 until his retirement, Dr Packer taught <span style="background: white; color: black;">systematic theology at Regent College in Vancouver, Canada. <a href="https://sites.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/story2014.pdf">Dr</a></span><span style="background: white; color: black;"><a href="https://sites.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/story2014.pdf"> Denis Lamoureux relates</a> how, while a student at Regent (where he received an M.Div. in 1987), Dr Packer's non-literal view of the first chapters of Genesis was instrumental in converting Lamoureux from creationism to theistic evolution. Dr. Lamoureux no longer <a href="https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j30_3/j30_3_62-66.pdf">believes Adam existed</a> (nor in original sin); he believes Paul was mistaken in treating Adam as historical. Lamoureux lectures often on creation-evolution issues at Regent, where the entire faculty seems to be on board with evolution.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="background: white; color: black;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Thus, although Dr Packer started well, his legacy is marred by compromises on biblical truth, compromises that his students expanded further.</span></span><br />
<div align="center" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "&quot" , serif;">*****</span></div>
<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike></div>
john bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-56672904220838909062020-07-17T13:47:00.003-07:002021-10-27T15:38:48.751-07:00How Should Christians View Origins?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div>
<span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">We have just revised our booklet <i>How Should Christians View Origins? </i>and converted it into an e-book. Available for free. A pdf version can be downloaded <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aR3P1sGPLhZVagQ4foz9jY_EaNRwZCUz/view?usp=sharing" target="_blank">here</a>.</span><br />
</span><a name='more'></a></div>
<span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><br /></span><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">Its description is as follows:</span></span><br />
</span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJWvjHSpJ0apDwp7Cp0gAa4fwAQFSPjqQCHKORvThfnnrwzwtoQNnpmZRxgvGO2kFDbhOfi9kyJOX6UXOos20Fy_UEHGhW56feSyw_38CtfYaD1CVnlOZcNP0WT7efE6mREOxw_W3j1BI/s1600/cover.rev.ed.new.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1206" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJWvjHSpJ0apDwp7Cp0gAa4fwAQFSPjqQCHKORvThfnnrwzwtoQNnpmZRxgvGO2kFDbhOfi9kyJOX6UXOos20Fy_UEHGhW56feSyw_38CtfYaD1CVnlOZcNP0WT7efE6mREOxw_W3j1BI/s320/cover.rev.ed.new.jpg" width="241" /></span></a></div>
<span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><br /></span></span>
<br />
</span><div>
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Are you related to apes? Is Adam just a myth? Is evolution a fact? Is the earth billions of years old? Has science disproven the plain reading of the Bible, particularly concerning origins? Many Christians think so.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">This booklet explores the nature of science, and the influence of naturalism. It examines pertinent scientific evidence and biblical texts. It shows how basic Christian doctrines are grounded in the historicity of biblical events. It defends the traditional, plain sense reading of Genesis.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">Much is at stake. Pastors, Bible teachers, church leaders, and students need to embrace a Christian worldview that fully upholds God's Word as the ultimate authority. This booklet provides a solid beginning towards this goal.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">-----</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">It is available<b> free</b> at </span><i style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/how-should-christians-approach-origins-john-byl/1123034480?ean=2940164684617">Barnes and Noble</a> </i>and at <a href="https://www.kobo.com/ca/en/ebook/how-should-christians-approach-origins-revised-edition"><b><i>Kobo</i></b></a></span> <span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">It is available also at <b><i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Should-Christians-Approach-Origins-Revised-ebook/dp/B08C9DZL4M/ref=sr_1_10?dchild=1&keywords=byl+goss&qid=1595007307&sr=8-10">Amazon</a></i></b>, for Kindle, but at their minimum price of US $0.99 (they don't allow free books). It is available free in pdf format at <a href="https://reformedperspective.ca/free-book-how-should-christians-approach-origins/" target="_blank">Reformed Perspective</a>.</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;">I still have some hard copies of the original edition, available for $1 each, plus postage.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: arial; font-size: medium;"><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">Meanwhile, there is also a <a href="https://www.clir.net/el-cristiano-y-los-origenes/">Spanish edition</a>, put out last year by </span><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif" style="color: #000120;"><u><a href="http://www.reformedmissions.org/clir.html">CLIR</a></u></span><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><span style="color: black;"> (<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; display: inline; float: none; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 24px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">Confraternidad Latinoamericana de Iglesias Reformadas), a Reformed mission organization that publishes many solidly Reformed books in Spanish.</span></span></span><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><br /></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAXG27bAFziJyDMuIiUaXnnjeC4XpcqtDvU3HAUc9q28onzikqZyzohm-98Nzuw-WbpVFEG2eNnY9XtZ1GbIZBtERC8wXLAXCqeonNyIHKxuQeMbFU1ckX9YPKEpBY4lDwmx5F67ysAW0/s1600/how.spanish.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="499" data-original-width="323" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAXG27bAFziJyDMuIiUaXnnjeC4XpcqtDvU3HAUc9q28onzikqZyzohm-98Nzuw-WbpVFEG2eNnY9XtZ1GbIZBtERC8wXLAXCqeonNyIHKxuQeMbFU1ckX9YPKEpBY4lDwmx5F67ysAW0/s320/how.spanish.jpg" width="207" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">*<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">****</span></span></div>
</div>
john bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-1777576944727670222020-06-15T09:38:00.002-07:002020-06-15T09:38:41.195-07:00Review: Understanding Scientific Theories of Origins<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">The <b>Creation Without
Compromise</b> site has just published an extensive <a href="https://creationwithoutcompromise.com/2020/06/09/book-review-understanding-scientific-theories-of-origins-part-5-final/">review by Dr. Wes Bredenhof</a> of
the theistic evolutionist book <i>Understanding Scientific Theories of Origins:
Cosmology, Geology, and Biology in Christian Perspective</i> (<span style="background: white;">Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2018. Hardcover,
659 pages).</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">The authors (Robert C.
Bishop, Larry L. Funck, Raymond J. Lewis, Stephen O. Mosher, John H. Walton)
are all Wheaton College professors, and all are scientists, except for
theologian John Walton.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background: white; color: #333a42; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="background: white; color: #333a42; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">The
reviewer, Dr. Bredenhof, is pastor of the Free Reformed Church of Launceston,
Tasmania, Australia. </span><span style="color: #333a42; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">This massive volume
attempts to make a theological and scientific case for theistic evolution. In
his review, however, he focuses on the <span style="background: white;">biblical
and theological side of things. He finds that this book is a repudiation
of the Reformation view of Scripture, a perversion of what Scripture teaches
about creation, in addition to other serious theological shortcomings.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background: white; color: #333a42; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="background: white; color: #333a42; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Although
USTO affirms the authority of the Bible, God's <i>special</i> revelation, it
disparages a “Bible-first” approach, where scientific theories must conform to
Biblical givens. Rather, it views scientific knowledge as part of God's <i>general</i>
revelation. The Bible and science are taken as equal partners in the
pursuit of truth regarding cosmological, geological, and biological origins; they
complement each other, and need each other to be properly interpreted.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #333a42; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #333a42; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Regarding Genesis 1,
USTO argues that, when read in the proper context of Ancient Near Eastern
thinking, it is concerned with God assigning proper functions to various parts of the universe, and <span style="background-color: white; color: #333a42; display: inline; float: none; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">not concerned with the origins of the material universe.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #333a42; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #333a42; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Hence, we must turn to (mainstream) science to
discover truths about physical origins. Consequently, USTO embraces full-scale
evolution over billions of years.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #333a42; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #333a42; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">This has various theological implications.
For example, why should a loving God use a creative process filled with so much
pain and death? According to USTO, God, in His love, gave creation a relative
freedom to develop itself. God has relinquished full control of His creation.
Of course, this raises further theological questions regarding God's sovereignty, providence, foreknowledge, and so on.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #333a42; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #333a42; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Further theological problems concern the
nature of Jesus Christ. USTO stresses that Jesus, while on earth, did wonderful things through the power of the Holy Spirit, rather than by Jesus' own divine nature. Bredenhof identifies the USTO view
of Jesus as <i>functional <span style="background: white;">kenotic</span>
Christology</i>. He explains in some detail what this is, and why it is
a serious theological error.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: #333a42; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #333a42; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Evidently, acceptance of evolution has widespread
theological fallout.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="color: #333a42; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Dr. Bredenhof concludes his review,</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="background: white; color: #333a42; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">I tried, but I could not read
this book dispassionately. In this book, I heard the whispers of Satan in
the Garden of Eden: did God really say? If someone is questioning
my Father or twisting his words, even if it’s done with the greatest
sophistication, I cannot remain dispassionate. I also think of the sad
fact that this book comprises course material at Wheaton College. Scores
of impressionable youth have been and are being fed this content. Because
it is happening at a Christian institution, they could be led to believe that
this is an acceptable Christian approach. It is not. It is <b><span style="border: none windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: none windowtext 0in; padding: 0in;">unbelief</span></b>. I pray for students at Wheaton College
that God will help them with his Spirit and Word to discern the truth regarding
origins.</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"></span></blockquote>
<div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Unfortunately, what is
taught at Wheaton College about science and Scripture is standard fare at most Christian
universities today.</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div align="center" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">*****</span></div>
</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span></div>
john bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-69290100085475039342020-06-12T11:55:00.000-07:002020-06-13T13:48:35.505-07:00Should Christians Support "Black Lives Matter"?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Recently there have been
many mass demonstrations against alleged police racism and violence against
blacks. Much of this is organized by the <b>Black Lives Matter</b> movement.
Many Christians naively support BLM, being unaware of its unchristian nature,
and of the pertinent facts concerning blacks and violence. <span style="background: white;">Here are some useful links providing important
information, and analysis of the underlying problems. </span></span></span></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
<b><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></b>
<b><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Blacks and Violence</span></b><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Nobody would want to
defend unmerited police brutality, or deny that it exists. However, statistics
show that, contrary to BLM claims, blacks are not unfairly picked on. A US <a href="https://winteryknight.com/2020/06/07/new-study-white-police-officers-not-more-likely-to-shoot-black-suspects-2/"><span style="color: blue;">study</span></a> of 917 fatal police shootings in 2015
indicates 55% of the victims were white, 27% percent black and 19% Hispanic.</span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Moreover, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/5-statistics-you-need-know-about-cops-killing-aaron-bandler"><span style="color: blue;">studies show</span></a> that black police officers are 3.3
times more likely to fire a gun than other cops at a crime scene. Further,
blacks are much more likely to kill cops than be killed by cops; 40% of cop
killers are black. A police officer is 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a
black than a cop killing an unarmed black person.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">The post <a href="https://winteryknight.com/2020/06/10/guest-post-christians-should-oppose-black-lives-matter/"><span style="color: blue;">Christians Should Oppose Black Lives Matter</span></a> </span><span style="background: white; color: #2b2b2b; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">gives further revealing
statistics. US police are 1.73 times more likely to use lethal force against
whites under arrest than blacks, and 2.41 times more likely to use lethal force
against whites under arrest for violent offences.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Each year about 7000
blacks are murdered in the US. But 94% are killed by another black person. Black
lives don't seem to matter to blacks. Even though b<span style="background: white;">lacks make up only 13% of the US population they account for more than
50% of US murder victims (and murderers).</span> About twice as many whites are
killed by blacks than vice versa. A black is 12.8 times more likely to
kill a white than a white to kill a black.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">The BLM itself is
closely associated with violence. It is <a href="https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/report-over-700-police-injured-in-black-lives-matter-riots-across-america"><span style="color: blue;">reported</span></a> that in recent weeks over 700 police
officers have been injured by BLM-led protests.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">The Unchristian Aims of
BLM</span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"></span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #003000; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">The post </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><a href="https://winteryknight.com/2020/06/10/guest-post-christians-should-oppose-black-lives-matter/"><span style="color: blue;">Christians Should Oppose Black Lives Matter</span></a> gives
the following summary of the official BLM aims:</span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #2b2b2b; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #2b2b2b; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">1. “<a href="https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/"><span style="border: none 1.0pt; color: #24890d; padding: 0in;">Disrupt</span></a> the
Western-prescribed nuclear family structure”</span></div>
<span style="color: #2b2b2b; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #2b2b2b; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">2. Foster a “queer</span><span style="color: #2b2b2b; font-family: "cambria math" , serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">‐</span><span style="color: #2b2b2b; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">affirming network” <a href="https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/"><span style="border: none 1.0pt; color: #24890d; padding: 0in;">and</span></a> “freeing
ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking,” instead of helping
people escape LGBT lifestyles and live as God intended.</span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #2b2b2b; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #2b2b2b; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">3. “A national <a href="https://blacklivesmatter.com/defundthepolice/"><span style="border: none 1.0pt; color: #24890d; padding: 0in;">defunding
of police</span></a>,” BLM is a member of M4BL which also calls for <a href="https://m4bl.org/about-us/"><span style="border: none 1.0pt; color: #41a62a; padding: 0in;">abolishing prisons</span></a>.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #2b2b2b; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #2b2b2b; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">4. BLM parent group M4BL is <a href="https://blacklivesmatter.com/responsestate-of-the-union/"><span style="border: none 1.0pt; color: #24890d; padding: 0in;">pro-abortion</span></a>: “we demand reproductive justice that
gives us autonomy over our bodies and our identities.”</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"> </span><span style="color: #2b2b2b; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">(about 40% of US abortions are by blacks)</span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #2b2b2b; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #2b2b2b; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">5. BLM parent group M4BL is anti-capitalist. The
alternative to capitalism is removing the freedom to buy and sell and putting
the government in charge of resources. When government power is absolute, all
checks and balances against evil disappear and atrocities become inevitable.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #2b2b2b; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #2b2b2b; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">6. BLM finds racism in everything with no concept of
forgiveness. While masking the much larger and real causes of black inequality
in the US.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #003000; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #003000; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">These are not
Christian goals</span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Solving the Problem</span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"></span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">At least part of the problem
is lack of proper black parenting. Black children are 2.7 times more likely
than white to grow up in a fatherless home. For more discussion on this see <a href="https://winteryknight.com/2020/06/12/two-black-economists-explain-how-to-end-poverty-in-america-2/"><span style="color: blue;">Two Black Economists Explain How to End Poverty in America</span></a>.
They argue that real poverty is rare in America, that most “poverty” is
self-caused by poor choices rather than racism, and that easy big government
welfare (blacks are 3 times more likely to receive government aid than whites)
doesn’t help blacks but actually deters them from making good choices (such as
hard work, education, marriage…).</span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">In short, the <b>Black
Lives Matter</b> movement has unchristian goals, distorts the reality of black
violence, promotes violence, and offers no viable solution as to how to improve
the situation of blacks in our society.</span></div>
<br />
<div align="center" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">*****</span></div>
,</span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span></div>
john bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-40488362979722763922020-05-25T10:51:00.001-07:002020-05-25T10:51:42.799-07:00Should We Still Cast Lots?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">Some Reformed churches sometimes use the lot to help in the election of office-bearers.<span style="background-color: white; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"></span></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"> For example, in the event of a tie
vote, some consistories specify that the lot is to be cast to determine who is
to be appointed. This may take the form of writing each name on a separate piece of paper, then picking one blindly. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">Often, the casting of the lot is preceded by a special
prayer asking God to show us His choice. A popular Canadian Reformed commentary on the Church Order justifies this practice thus:</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"> </span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><i>It is the proper course
to tell the Lord that we could not come to a conclusion and to ask Him now to
point out directly the one who is to be appointed.</i> [<span style="background-color: white; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"> "<i>With Common Consent</i>",
W.W.J. van Oene (Winnipeg: Premier Pub, 1990), p.347.</span>1]</span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-hyphenate: none; mso-line-height-alt: 12.0pt; tab-stops: -.5in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">What an honour to be directly chosen by God Himself! and what a humiliation to be divinely rejected. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">Implications</span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span style="background-color: white; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">But does God really speak to us through the lot today?</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">If so, consider some implications. First, if God's direct guidance is so readily
available, why bother voting at all? Why not let God directly choose <i>all</i>
the officers? Indeed, for that matter,
why not let the lot determine all controversial issues? This would save us much
work, particularly at classis and synod, and would guarantee that we reach the
right decisions. It would decisively settle even the most contentious disputes,
for who can dispute an unambiguous "<i>thus says the Lord</i>"?</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">Second, </span>in a tie vote both men are presumably deemed equally qualified to serve. Hence the decision of whom to choose is very simple, having no great significance. But why, then, is it that we ask for God's <i>direct</i> guidance
only for the simplest, non-controversial questions? Does this reveal a
reluctance on our part to request such divine help? Or does it perhaps suggest that,
at heart, we are not entirely convinced that God actually does speak directly
through the lot?</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">Chance and Divine Choice</span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">In defense of the lot one might
appeal to Proverbs 16:33: "<i>The lot is cast into the lap, but its every
decision is from the LORD</i>". This may seem to imply that the outcome of the
lot is to be equated with God's special choice.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">Yet
we must be careful. Even in Bible times, not every casting of the lot could be
considered as a divine oracle. As noted by Prof. J. Douma [<span style="background-color: white; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"> "<i>The Ten
Commandments</i>" (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1996</span>], in the Bible it was
to be done by direct command of the Lord, or "<i>before the Lord</i>". It
was often preceded by prayer. <span style="background-color: white; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">Not the
casting of lots itself, but the context in which it occurred, gave it a sacred
character.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">There are instances where the lot was used by
unbelievers, such as in dividing the garments of Jesus (Matt.27:35; Ps.22:18),
and in setting the execution time for the Jews (Esther 3:7). In such cases
there is nothing to indicate that God approved of the outcome. Yet God did
allow a heathen usage of the lot to indicate Jonah's guilt (Jonah 1:7).</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">The
Proverbs text, on the other hand, according to Douma, stresses that nothing is
outside God's influence. We use words such as "chance" and
"random" to denote our human ignorance of the future result. To our
omniscient and omnipotent God, however, nothing is really "random";
everything happens in accordance with His will and plan.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">Nevertheless,
God's knowledge and, indeed, predetermination of the outcome of the lot does not in itself
confer divine approval upon our usage of the lot, or upon our
interpretation of its outcome. <span style="background-color: white;">Hence, u<span style="color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">nless we can be
assured that our casting of the lot does in fact have divine sanction, </span></span>it is presumptuous for us to claim the
outcome to be a direct divine choice.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">Biblical Precedence</span></b><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">Thus we ask: does the Bible give any
support for our current usage of the lot?</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">In
the Old Testament, God certainly did at times reveal His will through the lot.
For example, God explicitly commanded that the lot be used in choosing the
scapegoat (Lev.16:8-10), dividing the land (Num.26:55), finding the guilty
Achan (Josh.7:14-18), and choosing Saul as king (I Sam.10:21-21). For other
matters God gave Israel also the Urim and Thummim, which seems to have been a
form of casting lots (see I Sam.14:41). By such means, before a priest, the
judgment of the Lord could be enquired (Num.27:21).</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">In
our day, however, we have no explicit commands from God to use the
lot, whether in a tie vote or otherwise. Nor are the Urim and Thummim any longer
available to us. Hence the application of these Old Testament practices to our
day is unwarranted.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">Moreover, with the Urim and Thummim it was possible for God not to respond. For
example, "<i>and the LORD answered him not by Urim</i>" (<span style="background-color: white; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">I Sam.28:6</span>). Yet, in our
usage of the lot, we not only compel God to answer but limit His possible
responses to a few very specific options, set by us. For all we know, both
candidates might in fact be unacceptable to Him who knows all hearts.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">Reference
is sometimes to the procedure used to choose the successor of Judas:</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><i>And they appointed two,
Joseph...and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou Lord, which knowest the
hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen..., And they gave
forth their lots; and the lot fell on Matthias. </i>(Acts 1:15-26)</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">To what extent is this event
normative for us?</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">Note,
first, that there is no mention of a tie vote here, only the nomination of two
men who satisfied the criterion of having accompanied Jesus throughout his entire
ministry (Acts 1:21-22). Also, some commentators are of the opinion that this
was actually a majority vote rather than a casting of lots. Further, there
is no indication that this procedure had divine approval, nor that it prescribes
how we, in our day, should choose church officers.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">Since
the twelve apostles had been personally chosen by Jesus, it may well have been
thought fitting that also the replacement for Judas should likewise be divinely
selected. That this was a special case is further reinforced by the fact that,
somewhat later, the seven deacons (Acts 6) are clearly chosen by the brethren,
rather than by casting lots. Moreover, let us not forget that in New Testament
times, unlike our own age, God was directly active in a special way.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">Conclusion</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">In summary, I believe it erroneous to
think that God, through the casting of the lot, directly indicates His choice
from among the alternatives we present. There is no biblical evidence to
support the notion that, in our present circumstances, God chooses church
officers through the lot, particularly not in a tie vote.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span style="background-color: white; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span style="background-color: white; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="background-color: white; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">Having
said that, </span>I see no objection to using the lot as a means to make an unbiased selection
between two equally acceptable options - as long as it is clearly perceived as
such, and not mistaken for a divine oracle.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">However, given the misconceptions regarding the lot, it is probably better to </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">break a tie vote
via some other impartial, unbiased mechanism that offers both men equal probability
of being selected. This could be by age, alphabetical order, flipping a coin,
or even picking a name out of a hat (just as long as we don't call it "drawing the lot"). As such, it could form part of the normal
voting procedure, and should involve no special prayer for God's direct revelation.</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">*****</span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">(Adapted from my article "On Casting the Lot", <i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">Reformed Polemics</span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">
Vol.7, No.4 (Oct. 28, 2000): 7-8).</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt;">
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
</div>
john bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-54971151941033147552020-05-18T09:22:00.000-07:002020-05-18T09:22:04.983-07:00Did Solomon Write Ecclesiastes?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Some time ago, when our
church’s Men's Society studied <i>Ecclesiastes</i>, there was considerable
debate as to who wrote it. Traditionally, it seemed clear that the author was
Solomon. Yet the study guide used [Rev. M.J.C. Blok, “</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><i>Ecclesiastes: The
Advent Congregation</i></span><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">, The Study, 2007] asserts that “<i>all commentators
agree that Solomon could not have written this book</i>.” </span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Rev. Blok claims that
the author was merely someone who <i>pretends</i> to be Solomon, writing about
700 years after Solomon. A similar position is taken by many other modern Bible
scholars. Tremper Longman (<i>The Book of Ecclesiastes</i>, 1998) sees <span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: black; display: inline !important; float: none; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">a parallel with fictional Akkadian royal autobiography. Longman even</span> goes so far
as to submit that the Preacher is an unorthodox God-criticizer, and that just
the last few verses, added by an orthodox editor, are genuinely inspired.</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Yet, until the last few centuries, most commentators took </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Solomon to be the author
of Ecclesiastes. Indeed, this was a prime consideration for including it in the
Old Testament cannon. This view was held also by Calvin [cf <i>Institutes</i>,
Bk.III, Ch.XXV, V], and by the Synod of Dordt (1618/19), which approved the <i>Belgic
Confession</i> (Art.4 lists Ecclesiastes as a <i>Book of Solomon</i>).</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Even today there are still commentators defending Solomonic authorship, such as Duane Garret [<i>Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, </i>1993] and Benjamin Shaw
[<i>Ecclesiastes: Life in a Fallen World</i>, Banner of Truth,
2019]. Philip Ryken [<a href="http://storage.cloversites.com/firstevangelicalfreechurch2/documents/Ryken-Ecclesiastes.pdf"><i>Ecclesiastes: Why Everything Matters</i></a>, Crossway, 2010] finds this to be the most natural reading of the Biblical text. According to Ryken,</span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">"<i>From the earliest days of the
church, many teachers have identified Solomon as the Preacher. After wandering
away from God and falling into tragic sin, Solomon repented of his sinful ways
and returned to the right and proper fear of God. Ecclesiastes is his memoir —
an autobiographical account of what he learned from his futile attempt to live
without God. In effect, the book is his final testament, written perhaps to
steer his own son Rehoboam in the right spiritual direction</i>." </span></blockquote>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Why does it matter who the author was? First, the identity of the author, and his historical
context, are significant factors in how one interprets the book and views its
message. Second, if the author is not Solomon, what is one to do with all the
author’s clear associations with Solomon? Isn’t this deceptive? How is that to
be squared with an inspired, inerrant, trustworthy Bible? Can we no longer take
the Bible at face value?</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"></span></div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Biblical Evidence</span></b></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Although Solomon is not
explicitly named, the author claims:</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">1. to be </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "" "times new roman" "" , serif; font-size: 7.5pt;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">“<i>the son of David, king in Jerusalem</i>”
(Eccl.1:1), “<i>king over Israel</i>” (1:16)</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "" "times new roman" "" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">.</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"> </span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">2. <i>"I have
acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me</i>”
(1:18)</span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">3. <i>"I made great
works, built houses…, had great possessions…many concubines…surpassed all who
were before me in Jerusalem</i>” (2:4-9).</span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">4. He “<i>taught the
people knowledge…arranged many proverbs</i>…”(12:9).</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Who else could this be but Solomon? Solomon is the only king were referred to in the Old Testament as "<i>the son of David</i>" (1 Chr.1:1). Moreover, all later kings in David's line ruled in Jerusalem only over Judah, not <i>Israel</i>.</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Some commentators object that references to oppression (e.g., 4:1; 5:8; 7:7)
don’t fit with Solomon's time. However, in Prov. 28 & 29 Solomon makes
similar references to oppression, and the Israelites complained of the heavy
yoke put on them by Solomon (I Ki.12). Solomon's reign, though peaceful, was
not free of oppression or evil.</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">It has been argued that "<i>surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before
me</i>" (1:16) implies there were many kings over Jerusalem before the
author. Hence this could not be Solomon, who was preceded only by David.</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Note, however, that the text doesn't specifically limit the rulers to
Israelites. Many others (including Melchizedek) ruled over Jerusalem before
Solomon.</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Furthermore, a parallel text (I Chr.29:25) describes Solomon as bestowed with
majesty "<i>as had not been on any king before him in Israel</i>".</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "" "times new roman" "" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">In fact, God promises Solomon wisdom “<i>so that
none like you has been before you and none like you shall rise after you</i>”
(1 Kings 3:12), and riches and honor “<i>such as none of the kings who were
before you, and none after you</i>” (2 Chr.1:12). “<i>None after you</i>”
entails that, after Solomon, no king could be greater than all those before
him.</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">More arguments of this nature, and their rebuttal, can be found in Garrett's book (mentioned above).</span><br />
<b><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></b>
<b><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Linguistic Factors</span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"></span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">The prime argument
against Solomon for Blok, and many other commentators, is that linguistic
factors date Ecclesiastes to 250-300 BC, after the exile. This is based on the
presence of a score of Aramaic words, a few Persian loan-words, and some
grammatical features found more often in later Biblical Hebrew.</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">But more recent scholarly evaluation finds such evidence to be ambiguous; all can be plausibly accounted for also with Solomonic authorship. For example,
Daniel Estes ("</span><i><span style="border: none 1.0pt; color: #111111; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; padding: 0in;">Handbook on the Wisdom Books
and Psalms", </span></i><span style="border: none 1.0pt; color: #111111; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt; padding: 0in;">Baker,<i> </i>2005, p. 273)
argues that the linguistic similarities to Aramaic reflect the close ties to
Phoenicia and Syria that Solomon maintained during his reign.</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">For a detailed, recent review of the linguistic evidence see the <a href="http://jesot.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/JESOT-4.1-Meek.pdf"><span style="color: blue;">JESOT(2015) paper by Russell Meek</span></a>, who judges,</span><br />
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">“<i>The book’s language
is an unfair measure of its authorship and date; it is simply too ambiguous to
provide irrefutable evidence of either Solomonic or non-Solomonic authorship</i>.”</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"></span></blockquote>
</div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Thus linguistic factors
do not rule out Solomonic authorship.</span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></b>
<b><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Inerrancy Questions</span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"></span></div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">In his review Meek
concludes:</span><br />
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">"<i>Despite the
ambiguous nature of the evidence, the arguments presented above for a date of
composition in the early period of Israel's monarchy are more compelling than
those that argue for a significantly later date. Most especially...why would a
book composed after the monarchy purport to give advice for dealing with the
monarchy? And why would the author claim to rule over Israel from Jerusalem if
he never did? Given the clear monarchial tone, the book would certainly be
disingenuous if it were written...when there was no monarchy in Israel.
Furthermore, despite the ambiguity of the passages that imply Solomonic
authorship, there are more clearly Solomonic than the "anti-royal"
passages are non-Solomonic. Finally, one must not discount the strength of the
argument from church history, which by and large held to an early date for the
book's composition until very recently.</i>"</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"></span></blockquote>
</div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Although Meek, on the
balance, favors Solomonic evidence, he cautions against making this an issue of
inerrancy.</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Nevertheless, i<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">f the Preacher is not in fact Solomon but merely someone who pretends to be,
is this not deceptive? Blok, Longman, and others argue that no deception is
involved because the Preacher has purposely left the mask of Solomon
transparent, so that we can easily see through it and realize that it is not
actually Solomon who is speaking.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14pt;">But if this mask is indeed so transparent, and merely an ancient, accepted literary device, why was
this not obvious to ancient commentators, who generally identified the Preacher
as Solomon himself, rather than a mere pretender? Is it not more likely that the alleged mask is just a modern invention superimposed on the text by liberal scholars who have already rejected Solomon?</span></span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Moreover, the Belgic Confession (Art.5) affirms that we should "<i>believe without any doubt all things contained</i>" in the Bible. So, for example, when the Preacher claims to
have been king over Israel in Jerusalem, should we not accept this as it is written? Especially
when we are assured, at the end of the book that the preacher "<i>uprightly
wrote words of truth</i>" (12:10)?</span></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="background: white; color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="background: white; color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">In conclusion, I find the denial of the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes
to be not only unwarranted on both Biblical and linguistic grounds, but also a challenge to Biblical authority. </span></div>
</div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span></b>
<b><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Confessional Note</span></b><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Although the original <i>Belgic
Confession</i> refers to Ecclesiastes as a "<i>book of Solomon</i>"
(Art.4), the Canadian Reformed Churches dropped this, and made other changes, in
1983 when it adopted a revised Belgic Confession.</span><br />
<span style="background: white; color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="background: white; color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">I have no objection to changing our confessions, should this be Biblically
warranted, which I am not convinced was the case here. Even so, such changes should be duly noted. The CanRC <i>Book of Praise</i>
purports to contain the <i>Belgic Confession</i> adopted by the Synod of Dordt
in 1618/19. This is not really true. The changes made by the CanRC should at least be marked with footnotes, giving the reasons why.</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">Most Reformed churches, however, have kept this reference to Solomon (including
the Dutch Reformed [Vrijgemaakt] Church of which Rev. Blok was a minister). Unhappily, too many Reformed ministers nevertheless reject Solomonic authorship.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14.0pt;">
********</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;"></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike></div>
john bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.com1