Rejoicing in Faith
July 14, 2010 — Mike Ratliff
by Mike Ratliff
Be patient, therefore, brothers, until the coming of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient about it, until it receives the early and the late rains. You also, be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand. (James 5:7,8 ESV)
The confidence of the true Christian cannot be in men or the faithfulness of their so-called Christian leaders. No, no matter how well known or published or how solid his reputation is, he is still a sinful man. The Christian’s faith and trust and confidence is not in any other Christian, or in any earthly institution. No, it is in Christ our rock. The false teachers have always known this and that is why they always teach “another Jesus” that is more like the pagan gods of other religions or even more like just one of us than the perfect Son of Man who we learn of in the Word of God. We who really know Jesus as our Lord and Saviour are new creations and have faith that believes God and even when it is under heavy attack, as it seems to be continually nowadays, God has provided us a way to rest in Him and finding peace and joy that the unregenerate cannot understand.
continue on here…
Most excellent!
I don’t know anything about Keller but do him and Piper teach a different Jesus?
Helpful link, but you misrepresented Mike. His post is called “Rejoicing in Faith”. You got the title of your post from 5ptsalt.com. Tsk, tsk.
This comment I posted at 5ptSalt on this veru post is still “awaiting moderation”:
[You have to be joking right!!?
Seriously – does this mean RC Sproul before he just recently embraced Young Earth was a false teacher?
I mean come on! I will never defend man but is this something we should be “earnestly contending for the faith” for?
Get a grip on this whole hyper discernment stuff , that is pure reactionary and ignorant!]
I know many fine Godly Christian men who believe in some sort of gap theory in the first few verses of Genesis, Do I think they are wrong yes, Do I think they are Christians yes.
“”He is then to bring to the priest a ram without defect from the flock, according to your valuation, for a guilt offering. So the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his error in which he sinned unintentionally and did not know it, and it will be forgiven him.” Lev.5:18
I think every one of us go about the day and sin without knowing it. To that, I believe if we are true, honest followers of Jesus, He forgives us for our ignorance (because we are continually growing in the knowledge of the Lord). Similarly, those who see no problem with any “gap theory”, as long as God is the Creator (not thinking through what such a “gap” really means and what impact it has on God’s word and credibility), and they are true followers of Christ, I would hope He would have mercy on them for their ignorance because they haven’t thought of the implications of that lie.
But God has a much stricter standard for teachers:
“Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.” James 3:1
“Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!” Matt. 18:7
Unfortunately, people, like sheep, look up to their teachers and follow wherever they lead. They trust them, accept their values and beliefs, incorporating them into their own. When a known, respected “teacher” (pastor, author, celebrity preacher, etc.) makes statements that run contrary to the clear instruction of the word of God, we are to take note and avoid them (Rom.16:17), no matter how well respected they may be.
The issue isn’t the gap theory, theistic evolution, or any other such workaround to accommodate science and the Bible. The issue is the integrity of the Word of God, the credibility of the God who breathed every one of His words, and our willingness to believe it or not. A “believer” is one who believes in what God has said.
5point,
I got the name from this paragraph in Mike’s post…
I have added to the title, hope this is satisfactory. If not, I will change it. I assume those who read this post would click on your link and read your post.
Calling for Clarification DefCon,
http://narrowseventhirteen.blogspot.com/2010/07/deny-literal-6-day-creation-your-doomed.html
In His service,
Matthew Johnston
MJ,
This is a sobering subject to be sure.
Here’s a tool that I’ve found useful, courtesy of Adrian Warnock:
1. Atheistic Evolution. There is no God. There was no prime cause. The universe came into being through the big bang. Random events unfold and have no design or purpose—everything we see came into being by itself. There is no real reason for our existence. Our consciousness is an illusion, and we reach out in vain for a Being to worship.
2. Passive Theistic Evolution: Old Universe, Old Earth, Old Creation. There is a God. He designed certain key parameters in the universe and sits behind the laws of physics. Without him the numbers just wouldn’t add up for the universe to hold together, let alone life to exist. But once God set these laws and triggered the big bang, he just sat back and watched as the universe unfolded entirely as he predicted according to observable laws of science. In practical terms, it is impossible to detect this God, but there are some hints of his existence because of the way the universe works. He does not intervene day to day in the running of the universe he made. According to this viewpoint, Adam and Eve and most of Genesis 1-3 are likely to be mythical.
3. Intelligent Design or Active Theistic Evolution: Old Universe, Old Earth, Old Creation. The universe unfolded much as the evolutionists believe. But much of what we see in the creation of animals, plants, etc., requires the intervention of an active Creator. God doesn’t just allow evolution to take its course, but intervenes as an active designer shaping it, possibly in bursts of creative activity. Some at this level would accept that Adam and Eve were real people created directly by God, and the ancestors of all humans today. Those who hold all subsequent views would tend to acknowledge the existence of Adam and Eve in almost all cases.
4. “Gap” Theory: Old Universe, Old Earth, Young Creation. The universe is as old as scientists believe it to be. The world is also as old as they think. The fossils do represent a true evolutionary process. But the old creation was destroyed, representing a “gap” in the Genesis account. God started over with a new creation, and this new creation of animals and plants, etc. was made in seven days and thus the fossils are not relevant to our ancestry. Usually in this view, some form of “micro” evolution is accepted. Thus, species created by God cannot change into a new species, but they can adapt and change like Darwin’s finches, which, in fact, never stopped being finches.
5. Old Universe, Young Earth. The universe is indeed old, but God made the world with an appearance of age. Like a tree created in a day would look old because its trunk is growing, the world (and possibly even all the fossils) were created in seven days with the appearance of age that is not real. Sometimes in this view and the later ones, even “micro” evolution is rejected.
6. Apparently Old Universe. The universe looks much older than it is. God made the world and the whole universe in a seven day period. When the stars were made, they were put in place together at the same time as the light emanating from them. Thus, the light we see was made directly by God and never came from the star we think it did. Everything was made exactly as a literal reading of Genesis tells us it is.
7. The Universe Doesn’t Even Appear Old. All the ideas of the scientists about the universe appearing old are simply wrong. We live in a young universe which was made in seven days and in the past creationists argued that such things as the amount of dust on the moon prove this.
FWIW here’s my personal perspective [i.e. I'm not acting as a "spokesperson" for the DefCon blog with this comment].
I absolutely and firmly disagree that salvation rests upon anything other than Person and work of Christ.
Furthermore I find it nothing short of appalling that some are apparently so comfortable establishing man-made shibboleths for regeneration.
Lest I be accused by someone of “compromise” at this point please allow me to clarify my meaning. If one reviews the list above it should be fairly obvious [I think] that the progression is from openly rebellious anti-theism, passing through a sort of functional deism, and moving finally towards a belief [more or less] in the literal plain-sense meaning of scripture [the historical-grammatical hermeneutic].
My own personal view is that as a believer is sanctified and grows in Christ-likeness, being conformed to His image and trusting more and more in Him and Him alone with the faith of a child, that one will naturally [or supernaturally depending on your perspective] move toward the historical-grammatical hermeneutic of scripture by the internal witness of the Holy Spirit.
I believe God’s eyewitness account of His own creation fiat as it’s plainly recorded in the book of Genesis is absolutely correct, historical and literal.
However I don’t believe that because other professing believers disagree with me on this point that they are all unregenerate; in point of fact I think such an assertion is offensive and belies a profoundly deep and arrogant ignorance.
Pronouncing damnation on someone because he or she may not have carefully thought through the implications of his or her doctrinal position on the Genesis account, or alternatively because God in His sovereign grace has not yet fully opened his or her eyes, or granted sufficient faith or insight to take Him at His Word in that individual’s current walk of sanctification is, I think, exceptionally uncharitable to say the least.
At this point someone might say, “Yeah CD, but you’ve just set up your own man-made shibboleth here, and you make it sound like you’re a super-spiritual guy who’s arrived and got it all figured out because God has apparently granted you apostle-like insights and faith that allows you to see things others can’t see – well aren’t you just special?”
To which I’d simply reply, no; not at all; taking God at His Word has been the default position of the true church and true believers for millennia; and the only thing I have to boast about is the cross of Christ.
Which thing [the cross] takes us all the way back to Genesis. What’s the purpose of the Bible? What’s the purpose of creation? It’s to display God’s glory; part of which [at least the part concerning human beings] is His gracious and merciful offering up of Himself to secure the salvation of His elect.
I think when we see the Bible as God has presented it, as His whole unified, and true Self-revelation; then we can appreciate the natural creation for what it is; the stage upon which God’s great act of redemption is played out.
In closing one must ask the question, why would anyone consider or dabble with a hermeneutic of the Genesis account other than what it plainly written? The most obvious answer is “science says”…[fill in the blank].
So then, what we find lurking just behind any theory in conflict with the literal 6/24-hour day creation account [the 7th day being a day of rest] is, in one form or another, unbelief.
And the genesis [pun intended] of most of the modern forms of unbelief surrounding the Genesis account arise, I think, from worldly wisdom so-called [science and scientism], therefore we can see that God’s Word in such cases is being made subserviant to worldly wisdom so-called, which thing is, of course, erroneous [and potentially idolatrous]. No Christian should ever think to adjust God’s Word to his thinking, on the contrary the believer is bound to always and everywhere adjust his thinking to God’s Word.
Biblically speaking those who profess Christ and hold to erroneous views ought to be prayed for, counseled, admonished, exhorted, and even disciplined; but professing believers who are stumbling ought to be considered as brothers and sisters in need of restoration in a spirit of humility and gentleness, not as out-of-the-gate apostates who need to be given the right boot of fellowship.
And let’s not forget that unbelief is still sin:
Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. – Galatians 6:1
That’s my two cents worth.
In Christ,
CD
P.S. – I want to affirm in the strongest possible terms that the charity and reaching out in a spirit of exhortation and humility to those who stumble over unbelief in various parts of God’s Word, including the historicity of the Genesis account, is in no way meant to suggest that the inerrancy and inspiration of scripture are negotiables – they’re not. My point in the response above isn’t what’s on the table for negotiation, but rather how to respond to those who demonstrate that they are weaker brothers in the faith when they give voice to their doubt, confusion, or even unbelief in various portions of scripture.
CD – I respect, apprecaite and agree wholeheartedly with what you have put forth here.
That is Christianity!
Blessings
Mike Ratliff had this comment in his latest post – http://mikeratliff.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/speak-not-to-please-man-but-to-please-god/
Lyn:
Thank you for including this quote from Mike. It is an issue that cannot be ignored, nor taken off in some unbiblical direction. But it does need to be recognized, and dealt with in a way consistent with the whole of Scripture. Because it strikes at the very character of God and the validity and supremacy of His word.
Frank Zindler, in a debate with William Lane Craig,
Atheism vs. Christianity video, Zondervan, 1996.
__________________________________________
G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution”,
American Atheist, 20 Sept. 1979, p. 30
Jeff:
Thank you, brother. Makes the point well just how critical and serious it is to defend the creation account in its entirety.
Jesus said:
“For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me” (John 5:46)
I think that creation is not the central issue; rather it is whom do we choose to believe. That is, do we bend our knee to the scientific community when they “prove” something in the Scriptures to be false? Do we say, “oh, well, I guess the Bible has it all wrong” and adopt the scientific communities theory? One example would be Noah’s flood. The Bible says it was global, science states unequivocally, even if they would admit such a flood occurred, that it was regional. Their diversion and that of some Christians around the clear meaning of the text taken at face value is that this account was written from the reader’s perspective. That is, to those living at the time (ignorant nomads) the flood would have appeared global so this is how the account was written.
The same thing has been done with what the Bible says about the sun. The Bible clearly denotes it as moving, with the earth as being stationary. Reading it at face value you cannot read it any other way. But science tells us, no, such is not true, the Bible is wrong and to deny our word is akin to believing the earth is flat. And many, many Christians and even creation ministries have bent knee and adopted the same approach as taken with Noah’s flood. Here they say, that the Bible was written from man’s perspective so this is how the sun is portrayed in the text.
My question here is what other areas do we need science to provide clarification for us so we can really understand what it is saying? Jonah and the great fish? The sun standing still and going back 10 degrees? The exodus and parting of the red sea? Manna from heaven? The miracles? The resurrection of Christ? The raising of our children and using (in a right way) the rod? Sin verses mental disease? Demonic possession?
I will interject to state that it is tragic that for thousands of years God’s people accepted what was written at face value, where it has only been in more “modern” times that scientists have graciously delivered us from our abject ignorance. Tears well up in my eyes to think how lost Christians would be in understanding the Bible without the Goulds, Dawkins and Hawkings of the scientific community to show unto us a more excellent way.
The other thing I observe, as I see true with Piper, is for one to want to have their cake and eat it too. That is, for one to say that what the Bible teaches is true and what science teaches is true. One expression that sums up this approach is that “the Bible is not a science textbook.” Translated – any facts of science the Bible might express in its narrative are not to be believed if science tells us otherwise.
Returning to what I see Piper and many others attempting to do; that is to reconcile science and the Bible, cannot be done. For the two are opposed to one another as light is to darkness. Science in academia (think Expelled movie) has its worldview and it preaches this worldview through what it purports to be objective findings. Truth be told, it is no such thing. Rather it is subjective theory based upon subjective theory that has as its premise God does not exist. And it seeks to bolster this premise through its theories with the end game being the dismantling of Christianity and destruction of the Bible. That is, if you can’t burn it, you can at least cause people to lose faith in its veracity.
Are our Christian leaders so blind that they don’t recognize this? Do they honestly think that science, academia, modern medicine, psychology and all the other disciplines are friends of Christians and the Scriptures? That they speak in our best interests? That we are to listen to their siren song and steer our ship in their direction? Sadly the answer for many is yes and is becoming more so as they days progress.
brother Michael, Say on!
brother Michael,
I think you’re spot on with your reference to ultimate authorities in the opening sentence of your statement. If one begins with human reason and then tries to make the Bible fit within the interpreter’s sinfully corrupted a priori assumptions, as opposed to bowing before God’s Word and allowing it to speak for itself; interpreting it within the context of the whole counsel of God by comparing scripture with scripture, then we find the old axiom true: “garbage in, garbage out”.
And sadly far too often – as you well know as a former Romanist – even when an individual, organization, or denomination claims to believe in the full and authoritative inspiration of scripture, eisegesis seems to be the default interpretive principle of fallen human nature; which thing manifestly affects even the regenerate as we can well see from the spectrum of theological differences ranging from the proper mode of baptism, to the reality of the Presence in the Lord’s Supper, to the extent of the Atonement, to the nature of the eternal Sonship of Christ to name but a few.
I think Jeff H’s comments are instructive, but they merely illustrate what we already knew – that men by nature hate God. We tend to think of self-professed, militantly atheistic pro-evolutionary theory folks like those quoted by Jeff H, or the usual suspects you named [Gould, Dawkins, & Hawking et al], as being somehow worse, or more depraved than the average “Joe” on the street who doesn’t know Christ, but in truth they’re equally wicked and damned before God, and they all hate Him zealously. The “in-your-face” types are just giving voice to what the more cowardly type think, but are afraid to say.
I remember hating God. I remember hating “church people”. How clearly I remember! And now I hate who I was, and I praise God for His unspeakable and undeserved mercy, grace, and love towards a reprobate sinner like me!
Based on my understanding of scripture, as believers we are to approach those who profess Christ as Lord and Savior in a manner that’s markedly different from the approach we are to take towards those who do not confess Him, especially in matters pertaining to the faith that was once and for all delivered unto the saints, which thing was the thrust of my response to Matthew Johnston. Bar none the best approach to scripture is the grammatical-historical approach, which approach certainly includes a belief in the reliability and historicity of the Genesis account.
It seems that many professing believers struggle with this approach to creation, so I can only conclude that they are being influenced by worldly wisdom so-called. And it’s at this point, as stumbling bretheren weaker in the faith, that they need prayer, exhortation, admonishment, and yes, even discipline to bring them to account, and to bring them into line with God’s Word with the goal of restoration. If they resist sound instruction and continue in disobedience to God’s word then they should be excommunicated, still with an eye towards restoration.
Speaking of “eyes”, in closing, something else caught my eye, therefore I have a quick question for clarification based on your comment: do you hold to the belief that the sun orbits a stationary earth? If so, could you offer an exegesis of the relevant passage[s], or some other resource[s] for further consideration of your position?
To all,
My 2010/07/15 at 7:53 pm comment below was a very specific response to a very specific question posed by Matthew Johnston at his blog. Please make certain that it is read and understood within that context.
In Him,
CD
Let me start off by saying (confessing — as in ‘same-saying with God’) that I am exceedingly wicked. Of myself, there is nothing good. Thanks be to God He saved me by the shed blood of His Son, my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Now, the reason I posted the above quotes (and those on the other thread) was to show the clear logic of how when one rejects the Genesis account of the creation and fall of man, it naturally follows that death was not God’s curse for sin and therefore the need for salvation evaporates.
But we know from the Bible:
“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—” (Romans 5:12)
and
“For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.” (1 Corinthians 15:21)
I quoted some lost folks to show that the logic is even clear to those who are unregenerate. Are they more evil than I am? Nope! And I never said they were.
The discussion earlier centered on the question of using the creation account as a litmus test for salvation. While that is patently absurd, it is also absurd to hold the view that evolution and salvation can go hand-in-hand (for the reason I stated above).
When I talk to Christians who reject the creation account in the Bible, I ask them why they needed Jesus. Before long, the conversation spirals into extra-biblical ‘pre-adamic’ races and other such unnecessary folly.
The slippery slope of asking ‘hath God really said?’ lives on.
The discussion earlier centered on the question of using the creation account as a litmus test for salvation. While that is patently absurd, it is also absurd to hold the view that evolution and salvation can go hand-in-hand (for the reason I stated above).
Agreed on both points!
In Him,
CD
CD wrote: Based on my understanding of scripture, as believers we are to approach those who profess Christ as Lord and Savior in a manner that’s markedly different from the approach we are to take towards those who do not confess Him, especially in matters pertaining to the faith that was once and for all delivered unto the saints, which thing was the thrust of my response to Matthew Johnston.
I agree 100% and benefited much from your response. My question, and it is rhetorical, is will they listen? That is, will they listen to you, me or any of the other “least” in the kingdom of God? My fear, and I believe it is warranted, is that as men achieve greater position in what has undeniably become a hierarchical clerical system that feels Popish to me, they become out of reach of the help of the “common” man (i.e. laity). For it is they who are seen as the mouthpiece of God’s revelation where God speaks only through them. This being evidenced Sunday after Sunday where it is they alone who speak as the rest of the men sit silent, effectively castrated, as they are permitted to listen yet never to speak but for an occasional “amen.”
This system has in large part bred many untouchables who are beyond the reach (at least as it appears to me) from rebuke, correction, etc.; especially if it come from one residing in a lower caste. I hope and pray this not be so, and I’m certain it is not for all, yet we cannot deny that this happens as it is the natural result of a system that puts one man at the top of a pyramid. I know my heart only too well to know if I were in such a position I wold be guilty I am most certain.
So – long story short, yes, we must show love and be apt to teach, patiently instructing those that oppose themselves that peradventure God might grant them repentance.
Finally, here are a few links to get you thinking on what I noted about a geocentric world. The funny thing is, from what I have seen in my studies (not in depth as materials are hard to find and I’m not scientist), is that heliocentricity has not been proven. It cannot be proven any more or less than geocentricity can. The only reason why 99.9% believe in heliocentricity (whether it be true or false) is that we were taught it from youth as an undeniable fact that is never, and I mean never to be questioned. And if one were so bold to question this theory, whether in youth or adulthood, they would quickly receive the scourge of ridicule and mocking and be made to look and feel like a fool and be labeled a “flat earther.” This quickly teaching the person that there are things you simply do not question. Of course this very same thing happens with evolution in schools and universities across the globe and it is the very reason why they think we are fools in believing in a literal six-day creation by a supreme God.
In any event – a few links:
http://geocentricity.com/
http://www.geocentricbible.com/
http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/ – Robert Sungensis Catholic apologist so be forewarned as he uses his premise to bolster the RC religion (as futile as that is). I look at it for what the scientists are saying, the experiments such as the one by Michelson & Morley, and other such things. For you know well my thoughts on Rome!
Hi brother Michael,
I honestly had not heard of a contemporary geocentric perspective before, but I (as an aerospace engineer for a large Government Space Agency) would suggest to you that — from a physics perspective — it really does not matter how we label a center. You are neither right nor wrong. I know that sounds like doublespeak, but you must realize that mathematical transformation functions can move us from any one reference frame to another, so there is no error in labeling any point a ‘center.’ All that matters is that we get the relative motion equations correct (following Keppler’s Law, for example).
As an example, if you and I are on trains going in the same direction on parallel paths, and my train is traveling at 50 mph, and your train is traveling at 60 mph, then from my perspective you are moving away (ahead) from me at 10 mph. Likewise, from your perspective, I am slowly dropping out of view at 10 mph.
Which one of us is right? Answer: we both are. (Bet you didn’t think you’d have a word problem to solve here…)
Most importantly, I must say that the Bible is clear that we (humans) are the center of God’s created universe and of His interest; thus He sent His Son for our salvation. Also please realize that I am passionate about Creation Science and have taught it many times (and am doing so Thursday nights!).
All of this to say that phrases such as “the sun rising” or “the sun setting” is the same plainly understood vernacular we use today, even though we are finally beginning to understand God’s physics. I would be concerned about the eisegetical risks of building an entire doctrinal physics model based merely on such phrases as.
The Bible has so much more scientific information, if we would just search the Scriptures, such as the earth being in space (vs. suspended by something, as other ancients falsely believed),
“He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing.” (Job 26:7)
Blessings,
- Jeff H
Jeff H – Thanks for your kind reply. I do completely understand what you are saying, yet I’m not going to give quarter so easily. That is, I do not believe our understanding of cosmology per the Biblical framework to be of any lesser importance than our understanding of life’s origins. To me, they are one in the same.
Regarding your point about the sun rising/setting being in our vernacular, that is exactly the point I was trying to make above. This being the tactic skeptics use regarding this area in the Scriptures, and others that I previously mentioned (e.g. Noah’s flood, parting of the Red Sea, etc). These texts about the sun, as they were written, and as man could observe by true empirical science and not theoretical so-called science, were taken as dogma by believers (Jews and later Christians) for thousands of years until the Copernican theory was postulated. Even then, it took time for the defenses to be totally breached, but breached they eventually were where science won the day.
Elaborating on why I cannot accept the vernacular argument, I believe the texts were not written such that men would believe them as written until thousands of years passed by and scientists came along to “clarify” their meaning for the ignorant. And not just clarify, but rather teach that the texts were not to be believed as they were written but rather per what science as the final authority taught they really meant. No different than what they have done with the verses regarding creation and life’s origins.
Regarding the sun, everyone now blindly accepts the heliocentric theory as dogma without even questioning it, or investigating it and will state without hesitation that they know that the sun does not revolve around the earth. This in itself is a false statement because people don’t “know” this, rather they believe it as no one has proven by empirical evidence that such a theory is true (i.e. no scientists stepped outside our universe to obverse this phenomena).
Likewise, how does such a belief deal with verses like this?
“Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.” (Jos 10:12)
So did the sun really stand still, or did it appear to stand still? What does it mean for an object to stand still? Is everything relative such that we can never really tell when an object is truly at rest? Is everything on a moving train so to speak where we can never really tell when one is stopped at the station?
Reading further in the text we are presented with a deeper conundrum as the text clearly written, clearly read at face value states the “sun stood still” as also did the moon.
“And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.” (Jos 10:13)
To me this is clear language where if it is just vernacular, than the sun did not really stand still. It only appeared to do so where in fact the earth stood still. Two totally different scenarios regardless if the end result as observed by man might be the same. And it makes the verse a false statement because the sun did not really stand still, it only appeared to do so.
Also, this language to me is no less clear than if you were to say to me as you whisked past me at 80mph on the Metroliner as I stood motionless on the platform at Union Station that Mike stood still. What would not be clear nor accurate is if your moving train traveling at a greater rate of speed passed my moving train and it appeared that I was standing still where you again stated that Mike stood still. I may appear to be standing still, but I am not in fact standing still. Rather, I am moving, as are you are moving based on a fixed point of reference (i.e. the stationary earth). The only difference being that you are moving at a greater rate of speed vs. my moving.
Finally, does it matter though as you asked? I believe it does no less than our discussion around the rest of Genesis where we fight tooth and nail for “it was evening and it was morning the first day” to be taken literally and at face value for a six-day creation. And here, not to accept the scientific “clarification” for this text. But cosmology becomes another subject all together. And it is for this reason that skeptics have a field day with Christians as we will accept at face value a six-day literal creation and categorically reject billions of years and evolutionary theory, yet when it comes to the heavens, we are all too willing to accept the scientific theories and throw out a literal reading of the text.
I encourage you to read a good introductory article, THE WHYS AND WHEREFORES OF GEOCENTRISM by Walter van der Kamp.
In closing, I’m just throwing this out there for folks to ruminate on and to look into if they are so inclined. In so doing, and in listening to the other side of the argument and not just accepting by default the Copernican-based arguments one might begin to see things a little differently.
Blessings to you and continue to be a light in the Govt space agency!
bro Michael
I agree COMPLETELY as to the importance. I treat everything in the Bible as infallible. Period.
My point was that I claim (from a physics perspective) that you are not setting up two sides of an argument. You are giving two perspectives on an identical event.
I would suggest to you that there is a physical phenomenon occurring which can be easily understood.
I gave you an example of relative motion (two trains) giving different appearances of velocity (speed and the direction-of-speed) based on relative motion.
That being said, if you are claiming epicycles and deferents, as Ptolemy did, then you are wrong. Period. A telescope and several hours of personal observation would tell you that.
You can also look at an ephemeris table and know where any heavenly body will be at a certain future time, because God is a God of order and He has given us a universe that has bodies contained in it that move according to His established physical laws.
One of those laws is Newton’s Law of gravitation, which says that every object in the universe attracts every other object along a line of the centers of the objects, proportional to each object’s mass, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the objects.
G ( m1 x m2 ) / r^2
where G is the gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are the masses of each of the two bodies in motion, and r is the distance between them.
The earth and the sun are actually orbiting in concert. Kepler’s Law (derived from Newtonian physics) is used to describe the particular motion of two masses, where one mass is much larger than the other. If you look at the equation, if one of the two masses is much larger than the other (the sun is much more massive than the earth) then instead of both objects orbiting around each other, the less massive will orbit around the greater, and the greater mass will move in a small circle as it is drawn to the less massive object.
As an example, picture a heavy, muscular man at a shot put competition, spinning as he prepares to put a heavy shot some distance. The shot orbits him in a circle, but his rotation point moves slightly (in a small circle) because of the mass of the shot pulling on him. This is actually the reverse of gravitational attraction, but the concept holds.
There are other implications of Kepler’s Law relating to the smaller object’s velocity as it traverses its orbit, and the time it takes in sweeping out arcs… All of these are measurable (directly).
For Ptolemy to have been right, each epicycle would have to be produced by an invisible mass at the center of the epicycle orbit, because without the mass present, the captured (orbiting) object would fly away.
Yes the Lord stopped the sun in the sky.
Yes Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead.
Yes Ezekiel spoke to the bones and God gave them life.
Yes yes yes.
God performed miracles in the Bible and they are to be understood exactly as they are written.
I would suggest to you, though, that the occasion of Joshua’s request to suspend the motion of the sun was more a request to the Lord to extend daylight for the benefit of the battle, and that the account in Scripture was not meant to serve as a description of the miraculous fiat.
Ouch. No, that’s not what I said at all, and I think the conclusion you implied (seemingly) was that I’m playing loose with Scripture here… and maybe with the rest of Genesis.
By my other posts here I hope you know better than that how I treat God’s Word.
What I said was:
That was a mathematical statement not a theological one !!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Bible is clear that the earth was created in 6 literal, 24-hour days about 6000 years ago, and I have NEVER implied anything else! I did not appreciate the mud bath!
Finally, I think this falls in the category of arguments we creationists should not use, since it is so easily refuted.
Also, take a look at the Answers in Genesis website for a list of additional arguments creationists should not use.
BTW, AiG has a good article on Helio- vs. Geo-centricity.
- Jeff H
Tim Keller is a seeker-sensitive so therefore he is a false teacher and John Piper is a compromiser, just look at his alliances with heretic/apostate Rick Warren, emergent foul mouth Mark Driscoll, Doug Wilson who is also into heresy, I believe Federal Vision. People need to stop listening or go to sit under these false teachers ministries. Why? Because they have no integrity, so what are you going to benefit from these men if they do not want to obey the word of God. That goes for any of these so called Christian leaders.
Thanks Jeff for taking the time to provide a response. You said: “The Bible is clear that the earth was created in 6 literal, 24-hour days about 6000 years ago”. I totally disagree. It is only clear in so far as the person reading the verse accepts the reading at face value and defines a day (in this context) as being a literal 24-hour period. Here, you know as well as I that there are countless Christians, ones who are very studied, who do not define a day in these verses as being a literal 24-hour period. Instead, they rely on what scientists, geologists, paleontologists, biologists, etc. have discovered and then read the text with this as their starting point. Case in point is right before our eyes with John Piper.
This is the exact same issue regarding the reading of the verses about the sun rising/setting. It is one in the same. It is all how one reads the verses and defines the terms for the sun rising and setting, the sun being stopped, the sun’s shadow going back 10 degrees, etc. A fact as I noted above is that for thousands of years until Copernicus these verses were taken literally as I have postulated. Unlearned ignorance of people living in the dark ages set free by modern science? – possibly, but maybe not.
Additionally, the older I get the more skeptical I am of scientists that have an anti-Christ worldview. I’m not enamored by their learning, degrees and technical speak any more than I am by some of the top doctors in the country. Here, I have dealt with a few of the best who have so much learning yet many do not know the most rudimentary facts about health, diet and nutrition. And when such things are presented as being cures/helps, one is ridiculed to scorn.
This is not in any way to say that I put my head in the sand or advocate it; no, certainly not, but I am skeptical. I’m skeptical when scientists tell me that they are close to discovering a gay gene when the Bible tells me it is a choice. I’m skeptical when science tells me that alcoholism is a disease when the Bible tells me it is a sin. I’m skeptical when science tells me it is harmful to spank my children when I read in the Scriptures that I am loving my child when I do so. I’m skeptical when science tells me that ancient man was a dolt where modern man is the epitome of intelligence when I see the exact opposite in the Scriptures. I’m skeptical when science tells me that the earth is billions of years old when as I read the Bible I see no such thing. And it is for these reasons and many more that I am skeptical about what science says about cosmology/astronomy. Path of an ignoramus?; maybe, but if it is, than so be it.
Finally, your questions raised have been answered by much more learned men than myself so I’m not going to be a fool and try to engage you in mathematical formulations any more than I would try to do with a Richard Dawkins or a Christopher Hitchens if we were discussing creation vs. evolution.
Thanks again – nice discussing this with you and thanks for the links.
bro Michael
Is that me?
Ahkay…
Then I guess I’m unable to tell you anything.
Thanks for lumping me in with those two.
This exchange has saddened me greatly.
In Christ,
- Jeff H
Jeff – You should have e-mailed me as you are reading something I did not write as you are taking it. Did you catch where I prefaced it with “scientists that have an anti-Christ worldview?” If you thought I meant you, you are terribly mistaken. Please do me the benefit of asking me and writing me offline as you totally misread what I wrote.
My second point was that I am a fool when it comes to understanding deep mathematical formulas and that I cannot debate these matters with you any more than I could in defending my creation position with a Hitchens/Dawkings; that was my point. And that I cannot go there for I have not the learning. – that was my point and it was not a personal attack.
For those who are interested:
http://apprising.org/2011/01/27/tim-keller-recommending-roman-catholic-mysticism/
I’m honestly not sure what the main argument thesis is…I have not studied/ read it…but if its ‘just the gap theory’ its legalistic & kinda dangerous to label a person I think non-Christian, in regards to where we have liberty…like interpreting what is meant by a thousand years, if it was any creation before man, etc. The Bible does not have answers to every question, but to the most important. So as long as they ‘believe’ what is clearly (something not disputable the Bible does say, like its Gods inspired word, or that God created man in His image, etc) written, they I believe have liberty elsewhere. Therefore who is anyone to judge Gods servants? If they teach false doctrine or don’t believe the Bible, etc…than that is different…but gap theory in my opinion is not a divisor, and to try to make it so, leads to less credibility (like crying wolf) when one speaks on real issues that are divisive.