I was reading through the book of Job the last couple of mornings and a brief observation came to me. Here's a brief recap, staring with the dialog between God and Satan.
Satan: 1:11 But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.”
God: 1:12 “Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.”
Then Satan went out and wreaked havoc: He took his oxen and donkeys and servants (v14-15), He burned his sheep and servants (v16), He took his camels and servants (v17), He killed his children (v18-19) But Satan did not touch Job or his wife! (see 2:9, 19:7)
Why not?
Could it be that scripture says that husband and wife are “one flesh” (Genesis 2:24)?
Friday, July 8, 2011
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Answering Objections to Overture A at Classis
This last weekend I attended our Classis meeting and listened to the deliberation over the issue of Biblical inerrancy regarding our denomination’s position with Creation and Science and recent events. During the deliberation the overture was well presented and introduced with a couple others providing immediate support for at least the sentiment of the overture. The rest of the discussion proceeded and we heard several objections. The following is a list of those basic objections and answers which support the ideas of the original overture presented.
Objection: We drive people away when we take a literal approach to Creation
This objection is extremely subjective and speculative unless backed up by the data to support this. There are many different reasons people are driven away from the church, we can look at two opposing approaches related to the Creation and Science issue. It is true that many people are leaving the church, the alternative explanation is that people are leaving over this issue because they have lost faith and trust in the reliability of scripture because they have so many unanswered or weak questions.
When we look at data, we see studies and polls by George Barna and others by Britt Beemer in association with Answers in Genesis. You can find the results of the study in their resources under the title of “Already Gone”. http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/pdf/am/v4/n4/already-gone-small.pdf
Objection: There are many interpretations of scripture, why force yours on them
This is a corollary of the previous one, trying to question the approach of the report and its basis in scripture. It seems to be grasping at straws. To answer this it’s important to understand interpretation; every scripture passage has one interpretation (determination of the meaning and intent of the words given by the message giver), but many different applications (how do we use it to understand and shape our beliefs and actions). The next objection is important in interpreting the text.
Objection: Genesis is beautifully poetic and should not be taken as history
There are many different genres of writing throughout scripture. We may say this is written beautifully, thus claim it as poetry, but that is not a true determination of poetry. We need to look at the words, the style and the structure of the writing. http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_3/j18_3_61-62.pdf
Objection: This overture accuses others of not respecting scripture
As one who holds to a Biblical creation model that is not what I believe or promote. However, I have noticed a pattern of this reaction. We certainly don’t make the accusation, but often are accused of that. The reaction of the message receiver is primarily the responsibility of the message receiver. The written word of people in communicating things can be problematic and easily mis-read.
Objection: The Bible addresses the questions of “who and what”, science addresses the “when and how”
This statement is more of an agreement of how we should separate our investigation of God’s creation. This statement is also easily demonstrated as false. Just look at the text of Genesis 1:1, we can quickly find the who (God) and what (heavens and earth). If we look at the rest of that chapter, we can’t escape the when and how, even though there are more unknowns and questions still outstanding. Throughout the first chapter we see indicators of time (when) such as “in the beginning”, “evening and morning”, “the first day”. We get other indicators of time as we look through the rest of scripture; the Bible is uniquely rooted in time and space and history. We also read indicators of the how, such as “and God said” indicating it was created by his word, and also referring to plants, birds, fish and animals “according to their kinds”. It also separates the creation of man from all the other things.
Objection: The NIV translators inserted a word that is not in the original to account when Jesus said that the mustard seed was the smallest of ‘your’ seeds to avoid embarrassment.
I won’t address the motivation issue here, but there are always answers to apparent contradictions in the Bible or between the special revelation (Bible) and general revelation (Creation). This claim is also what many see as part of the problem, when Christians help undermine the trust in the reliability of the Bible. You can go online and find hundreds of these so-called problems through the many skeptic’s sites. But, I’ve seen enough of these to have complete faith that there’s always a reasonable answer to these questions. This one is no different, the secret usually is to look at the text they reference, read it yourself, understand the context, and compare it to other scripture as well. This passage is found in Matthew 13:31-32, the context indicates a man planting seeds in a field. The seeds I found to be smaller than the mustard seed were the Orchid, Begonia, and Petunia; none of these are crops which match the context of field crops that the audience would have had in view.
Objection: We don’t want to go back to Galileo
This is an empty straw man argument and doesn’t deserve much space. For those interested in more details about that controversy, you can find an article at http://creation.com/the-galileo-twist.
Objection: a quote from John Calvin was read indicating his support for scientific investigation, implying his support for free inquiry of scientific scholarship
John Calvin through his commentaries and other writings support a similar view of Creation and the timeline espoused by the overture. Here’s an example from Calvin, “For it is too violent a cavil to contend that Moses distributes the work which God perfected at once into six days, for the mere purpose of conveying instruction.” Also, “They will not refrain from guffaws when they are informed that but little more than five thousand years have passed since the creation of the universe.”
Objection: We need to take an approach in Article 2 of the Belgic Confession that shows both general and special revelation as equal
Let’s take a look at the Belgic Confession, article 2. It does start with “We know him by two means” naming the two as “first, by the creation” and also “second, he makes himself known to us more openly by his holy and divine Word”. This does indicate that both are God’s revelation, but when we run into a situation that seems to contradict between the two, we should side with the one that more openly reveals God to us. That shows the two are equal in truth, but when it comes to man’s understanding, God’s Word takes primacy. Next, let’s not forget about Article 7 The Sufficiency of Scripture which says, “everything one must believe to be saved is sufficiently taught in it.” And that “the teaching is perfect and complete in all respects. Therefore, we must not consider human writings…equal to the divine writings. Read the whole article at the CRC web site, http://www.crcna.org/pages/belgic_articles1_8.cfm.
Objection: We drive people away when we take a literal approach to Creation
This objection is extremely subjective and speculative unless backed up by the data to support this. There are many different reasons people are driven away from the church, we can look at two opposing approaches related to the Creation and Science issue. It is true that many people are leaving the church, the alternative explanation is that people are leaving over this issue because they have lost faith and trust in the reliability of scripture because they have so many unanswered or weak questions.
When we look at data, we see studies and polls by George Barna and others by Britt Beemer in association with Answers in Genesis. You can find the results of the study in their resources under the title of “Already Gone”. http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/pdf/am/v4/n4/already-gone-small.pdf
Objection: There are many interpretations of scripture, why force yours on them
This is a corollary of the previous one, trying to question the approach of the report and its basis in scripture. It seems to be grasping at straws. To answer this it’s important to understand interpretation; every scripture passage has one interpretation (determination of the meaning and intent of the words given by the message giver), but many different applications (how do we use it to understand and shape our beliefs and actions). The next objection is important in interpreting the text.
Objection: Genesis is beautifully poetic and should not be taken as history
There are many different genres of writing throughout scripture. We may say this is written beautifully, thus claim it as poetry, but that is not a true determination of poetry. We need to look at the words, the style and the structure of the writing. http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_3/j18_3_61-62.pdf
Objection: This overture accuses others of not respecting scripture
As one who holds to a Biblical creation model that is not what I believe or promote. However, I have noticed a pattern of this reaction. We certainly don’t make the accusation, but often are accused of that. The reaction of the message receiver is primarily the responsibility of the message receiver. The written word of people in communicating things can be problematic and easily mis-read.
Objection: The Bible addresses the questions of “who and what”, science addresses the “when and how”
This statement is more of an agreement of how we should separate our investigation of God’s creation. This statement is also easily demonstrated as false. Just look at the text of Genesis 1:1, we can quickly find the who (God) and what (heavens and earth). If we look at the rest of that chapter, we can’t escape the when and how, even though there are more unknowns and questions still outstanding. Throughout the first chapter we see indicators of time (when) such as “in the beginning”, “evening and morning”, “the first day”. We get other indicators of time as we look through the rest of scripture; the Bible is uniquely rooted in time and space and history. We also read indicators of the how, such as “and God said” indicating it was created by his word, and also referring to plants, birds, fish and animals “according to their kinds”. It also separates the creation of man from all the other things.
Objection: The NIV translators inserted a word that is not in the original to account when Jesus said that the mustard seed was the smallest of ‘your’ seeds to avoid embarrassment.
I won’t address the motivation issue here, but there are always answers to apparent contradictions in the Bible or between the special revelation (Bible) and general revelation (Creation). This claim is also what many see as part of the problem, when Christians help undermine the trust in the reliability of the Bible. You can go online and find hundreds of these so-called problems through the many skeptic’s sites. But, I’ve seen enough of these to have complete faith that there’s always a reasonable answer to these questions. This one is no different, the secret usually is to look at the text they reference, read it yourself, understand the context, and compare it to other scripture as well. This passage is found in Matthew 13:31-32, the context indicates a man planting seeds in a field. The seeds I found to be smaller than the mustard seed were the Orchid, Begonia, and Petunia; none of these are crops which match the context of field crops that the audience would have had in view.
Objection: We don’t want to go back to Galileo
This is an empty straw man argument and doesn’t deserve much space. For those interested in more details about that controversy, you can find an article at http://creation.com/the-galileo-twist.
Objection: a quote from John Calvin was read indicating his support for scientific investigation, implying his support for free inquiry of scientific scholarship
John Calvin through his commentaries and other writings support a similar view of Creation and the timeline espoused by the overture. Here’s an example from Calvin, “For it is too violent a cavil to contend that Moses distributes the work which God perfected at once into six days, for the mere purpose of conveying instruction.” Also, “They will not refrain from guffaws when they are informed that but little more than five thousand years have passed since the creation of the universe.”
Objection: We need to take an approach in Article 2 of the Belgic Confession that shows both general and special revelation as equal
Let’s take a look at the Belgic Confession, article 2. It does start with “We know him by two means” naming the two as “first, by the creation” and also “second, he makes himself known to us more openly by his holy and divine Word”. This does indicate that both are God’s revelation, but when we run into a situation that seems to contradict between the two, we should side with the one that more openly reveals God to us. That shows the two are equal in truth, but when it comes to man’s understanding, God’s Word takes primacy. Next, let’s not forget about Article 7 The Sufficiency of Scripture which says, “everything one must believe to be saved is sufficiently taught in it.” And that “the teaching is perfect and complete in all respects. Therefore, we must not consider human writings…equal to the divine writings. Read the whole article at the CRC web site, http://www.crcna.org/pages/belgic_articles1_8.cfm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)