With all sincere respect, I am sure your homeschooled 12-year-old exegetes in precisely the way he has been taught, just as I did as a homeschooled 12-year-old.
Have you ever paused to wonder: would you be able to tell which things are parables if the text did not explicitly identify them as such?
I affirm that science is real. That being said, there is nothing naturalistic about my view of creation. “He covers the heavens with clouds; he prepares rain for the earth; he makes grass grow on the hills. He makes the grass grow for the livestock and provides crops for man to cultivate, bringing forth food from the earth.” God is intimately present with, involved in, and at work in every facet of His creation.
Oh my
Thank you so much. I haven’t laughed that hard in weeks.
It is without question an article of faith, though it could more properly be termed an article of theology. God’s relationship to the cosmos, in historic Christian theology, has always been both Creator and Sustainer. But that is not to suggest any sort of behind-the-scenes tinkering; it would be foolish to try and look for discrete fingerprints to use as evidence of God. Everything proceeds as the laws of nature ordain, exactly as God intends. That’s a very fundamental element of Christian theology.
Expecting to detect divine fingerprints beneath the surface, as many creationists do, is as silly as listening to an orchestra and expecting to figure out the middle name of the conductor based on the sound of the music.
God sustaining the universe and all creation is a fundamental part of Christian theology. God doing so without leaving any evidence is not.
Why would it be foolish to look for discrete fingerprints of God… do you see the “laws of nature” as some kind of autonomous ability of nature?
If natural laws are autonomous inherent traits of nature, then in what way does God sustain creation? Wouldn’t it be self sustaining?
It’s more like concluding someone has composed the music and someone is playing the orchestra…
The ridiculous part would be to expect the orchestra to show no evidence of the players.
I read some of your articles on medium.com. I enjoyed some of them. You are a good writer.
As far as Scripture, when treating them as literal communication from our very God where we humble ourselves and seek hard after Him and His goodness for His sake while learning from the most godly, gospel empowered Christians we know over passages, i believe we can conclude with great accuracy what they are about. I have spent weeks on a single passage of Scripture that was hard to comprehend in my mind, praying through it, seeking wisdom from others over it, and contemplating how it fits with the entire rest of the body of Scripture. Going in with misunderstanding on the passage, most times i come out with renewed zeal and a sense of complete understanding.
The key ingredient is seeking the Holy Spirits working. You know it is He when He illuminates Jesus and importantly His sacrifice on our behalf giving us no room to boast while giving specific understanding of passages.
And i love the parables of Jesus! They are partially a good teaching method and partially a fulfillment of prophecy. See mathew 10:13
The parable of the sower i have spent weeks seeking God for understanding.
Problem with this statement is that God says in Ro 1 that ALL mankind see the fingerprints if you will of God in creation so all men and women are without excuse:
“For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”
Additionally, biblical faith is wrapped around counting on and celebrating Gods existence, not just sort of religious duty:
Hebrews 11: “And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists…”
Don’t you find any warrant for the study of nature (the theme behind the Truth of God discussed below)?:
Romans 1:18-22
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them." [< This “showing” can only be from the 2nd book, no?]
20 "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made."
. . . . . . . [ Clearly a reference to God’s creation! … the 2nd Book! ^^^ ]
“So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.” 22
This is an universal revelation accessible to all people with or without in depth study.
This revelation of nature is as much accessible to the child looking at the sky as it is to the astronomer looking at the stars through telescopes. This truth is as accessible to the farmer as it is to the geneticist.
Science does not add to this revelation because of its strict commitment to Methodical naturalism. The study of nature using MN doesn’t tell us anything about the glory of the creator.
I am open to natural theology. I just don’t equate Science with the study of natural theology. The Scientific enterprise Is too committed to the materialistic framework to give an undistorted picture of God role in creation. It often conflates creation with the creator and ascribes God’s attributes of creativity to creation.
Edit: Though Scientists don’t like it. MN has philosophical consequences when it is inadvertently applied to theology and philosophy. This is the problem with a lot of liberal theology over the last few decades. It’s materialist by default.
Your brittle and narrow interpretation does you no justice.
Science BY ITSELF does not add to this reveleation… it must be viewed through the eyes of Faith.
You know this.
Sometimes your clever but cynical manipulation of words to attempt to score points really cuts me. It makes me unwilling to trust your interpretations on anything else… because it seems you will use any and all rhetorical tricks to accomplish your point. If you sincerely don’t think they are tricks, then you are not using care to develop your conclusions.
I find it increasingly unpalatable. You don’t seem to be here to build trust … but to score points.
And this is an important distinction. Science cannot be a commentary on God’s book of nature because of this very reason.
It says nothing about God.
Here are the facts.
1.Even a person who knows nothing about Science can look at creation and learn things about God.
2. Modern Science has nothing to say about God or his glory.
In such a scenario, why should Science be considered as a commentary on “God’s work”.
Just describing nature doesn’t cut it. The basic minimum is to distinguish between the creator and creation.
Science doesn’t even do this.
This approach of considering Science as some kind of commentary on God’s revelation through nature which has equal status to the Scripture/interpretations of Scripture has serious hermeneutic consequences.
Yet, I don’t see how science can be a true commentary on God’s work, since it can tell nothing about God.
I am not talking about some distant past. I am talking about Science as it is today.
Here is a great article by a man full of wisdom whom i learned under 35 yrs ago in college:
Ashwin makes a great point: the Romans passage suggests that when humankind takes a un-adulterated glance at what appears designed and created by God, they know He exists and know that they are responsible and accountable to Him. But our sin nature wants to stifle this idea, so naturalism becomes truth to them and scientific philosophy is molded thru that lense. Check out article about this. Really smart stuff
Your link is not a “great article”, it is a short blurb, and it was written by David Klinghoffer, not Moreland. David Klinghoffer is not even a Christian. Did you mean to link to something else?
What is present at the link you provided begins with this:
Scientism is the belief that only science can impart reliable knowledge. It rules in our culture — in media and academia — even thoughts its fatal faults are evident on any careful examination.
Do you truly think that @gbrooks9 (or any other of the professing Christians here) believes that only science can impart reliable knowledge? This statement cannot be true for any of us.
Because your statement about Science is a gross exaggeration which only applies to what happens when a non-religious person discusses science.
There are millions of Christians who can take the same information and place it in a Christian context.
The Book of Job is demanding that the reader interpret the natural wonders around him or her and put it into the context of the Lord Yahweh. Do you deny this?
And yet you attempt to deny the very same process to modern Christians who find science (for what it does) as valid and useful… and sometimes inspirational!
Maybe. Thought i found the one re jp moreland that went into detail as intro to his new book on sciencism. Sorry. Here is the thing- of course hardly anyone trusts science as the all encompasing authority about everything. But we are all human and sometimes will tend to place trust in vehicles such as science at the expense of other possible realities sometimes when we dont realize it. Same with some not wanting to be called an “evolutionist.” I think, well maybe you dont subscribe to nature in a materialistic perspective producing all life forms, but with the models proposed equating such a large chunk, calling that person an “evolutionist” may be in order. Gonna pause to see if i find the article on moreland…found it. Not by moreland but about him and his book:
For the record, i called out another here for calling Dr. Swamidass an “evolitionist”
If a fundamentalist is purely accepting the idea of a young earth because the Scriptures point this way then im a findamentalist. But i am truly contrary to 90% of the rest of those depictions even though i clearly accept exactly what God says is “sin” as something i should avoid as this would be displeasing to God. So i guess that makes me about 10% fundamentalist and 90% not. What do you think?