Home » Posts tagged 'Genesis'
Tag Archives: Genesis
What Is the “False Doctrine” of Only One Text of the Bible? (Part Four)
Most of what we believe occurs like the following. One, we read the Bible with a grammatical, historical interpretation or hear right preaching of the Bible. Two, we believe what we read or hear and that becomes our beliefs. Three, we look for the fulfillment of scripture in the only world to live it, the real one here on earth. Four, we apply the Bible by practicing it according to the right thinking of and about it.
In its context, the Bible teaches its own perfect preservation in the language in which it was written. There really is no other kind of preservation in the Bible. Something less than perfect is in fact not preservation. If it is not the language in which God gave scripture, that’s not preserving what He gave. He gave it in that language for a reason. It would communicate what He wanted.
Preservation
Because scripture teaches the perfect preservation of this one Book and all of its individual Words, then we believe that. Then we look for its fulfillment. I am open to fulfillment of scripture that is not what I think, an alternative to it. I have not heard anything close to an acceptable alternative. The fulfillment I believe glove fits what I see in the Bible. It happened like God said. Sure, we’re missing some of the historical detail, but that’s normal in belief, which corresponds to faith is not by sight.
When I go to apply what I believe about the preservation of scripture, I can see that it is the Hebrew Masoretic for the Old Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus for the New Testament, based on all the scriptural presuppositions. What Mark Ward says does not move me, because he never starts with scriptural presuppositions, even in his rare 1 Corinthians 14 exegesis, which would apply only to translation anyway, not the doctrine of preservation.
The List Again
For easier reading and review, this series left off covering the following five points, concerns expressed for awhile by Mark Ward, for which he prays for an apology:
- One, they don’t sufficiently acknowledge archaic English in the King James Version, semantic changes, the worst of which Ward calls “false friends.”
- Two, they say God preserved every Word in the original language text, but they won’t point out the preserved printed edition of the Textus Receptus that represents that.
- Three, they keep using the King James Version, so making the Bible opaque to the average reader, even though modern versions from the same underlying text are available.
- Four, they won’t admit that church men have long recognized textual variants and acknowledged their existence.
- Five, the underlying text behind the King James Version didn’t exist in a single edition until Scrivener in the late 19th century, who himself didn’t support the Textus Receptus.
This is not Ward’s official list. I’m making it his list from what I’ve read of him, and I’m now to number three.
Modern Versions of the Same Text as the King James Version Are Available
Ward concludes that unwillingness to embrace a modern version of the same text as the King James Version indicates some kind of deceit on the part of those who claim dependence on the underlying text of the King James Version. If underlying text is really the issue, men can and should switch translation to a more readable or intelligible one. Ward has a bit of a point here. What’s with these men still using the King James Version with a hundred or more unintelligible English words? He contends that using a definition list of the difficult words or marginal notes doesn’t cut it.
Misunderstood words is a problem for a translation. When translators work at translating, they do have the audience in mind. First, they try to translate exactly the meaning of the word and according to its usage in the context. The King James translators did that, but some of the words now mean something different to a contemporary English audience or they mean almost nothing at all.
An Explanation of Translation
As a preacher of the Bible to English speaking people, I explain to my audience what the original author intended for either the Hebrew or the Greek. Right now I’m preaching through three books: Sunday morning, Matthew, Sunday night, Genesis, and Wednesday night, Revelation. This is my second time in my life through Matthew, fourth through Genesis 1-12, and at least fifth through Revelation. I’m going to give you just one sample from the texts I preached on Sunday in Genesis 3. I talked about Genesis 3:8, which says this in the King James Version:
And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.
I mention just one word — the word “cool.” Isn’t it cool that this is the first use of the word “cool” in the Bible? So cool. “Cool” translates the Hebrew, ruach, which is almost always “wind.” It is also the Hebrew word that refers to the Holy Spirit. It does. So is “cool” the right translation of ruach? Did the KJV translators get it wrong with “cool.”
Ruach
The word ruach comes with an article, so it is “the cool.” It is not “a cool.” It isn’t just any cool at this juncture in the early history of the world. It refers to one particular time in the day when a breeze would blow through the Garden where Adam and Eve lived. That breeze made the temperature more cool at a particular time that Moses’ audience and people living on earth, reading this, would understand. The sun would set, which caused a breeze. It’s not so much to communicate the temperature though as it did to describe a time Adam and Eve would meet with God.
Shouldn’t people know that “cool” was a breeze or a wind? Is “cool” really better? The NIV, ESV, NASB, and the NKJV all translate ruach here “cool,” even though it is a very exceptional translation. Would an English reader, who doesn’t look at the Hebrew, know that “wind” was involved? I would say, “No, they would not.” They wouldn’t know that. This happens a lot too and far more times in an English translation than a hundred times. Is it is sin? Of course not.
The word God inspired is ruach, which is also what He preserved. That’s the major issue for me. Every translation will still require digging to understand it. I don’t think one hundred English words now with semantical changes change the dynamics enough to merit a new translation, especially in light of the glut of English translations. I want to explain that, as I have many times before.
Weighing Reasons
As much as semantical changes might give a reason for another translation of the same underlying text of the King James Version, reasons also exist for not doing it. Men weigh those reasons against each other.
One, the King James Version is a standard.
Two, churches accepted and accept the King James Version for centuries.
Three, the King James Version passed the test of time.
Four, it should not be easy to change the Bible.
Five, churches are familiar with the language of the King James Version and it becomes the lingua franca of a church.
Six, churches memorize the King James Version and a new translation would upend that to a large degree.
Seven, churches who believe in the underlying text of the King James Version would agree to do that among them or from their midst (not based on critical text supporters like Mark Ward goading them).
Eight, churches would need to cohere to a monumental task to provide a new standard.
A Conclusion
Having weighed reasons, I don’t believe King James Version churches are ready for a new translation or update. I think I would know that as well as almost anyone. The kind of talk I have in this piece is not something Mark Ward deals with. What I’m saying is real. It matters. Ignoring it is unhelpful and even condescending. It does not smack of Spirit control.
More to Come
Modernism Is Not an Acceptable Alternative to Postmodernism: Jordan Peterson
Early Experience with Modernism
Growing up in small town Indiana, no one exposed me to modernism. Without anyone telling me, I read the Bible as literal. Everything happened in it just like it read. When I was twelve, my dad took us all off to Bible college in Wisconsin when he was thirty-five years old, but he was never some theologian.
I interacted very little with modernism in college or graduate school. When I wrote papers, I provided alternative views to my position, so I read a little modernism then. Faculty did not assign modernist books to read in a fundamentalist college. The modernist books, I must admit, I used to pad my bibliographies, quoting them in selective fashion.
My theological separation divided the saved from the unsaved. People either received or rejected Jesus Christ. I did not categorize someone a modernist. He just rejected the truth, an unbeliever. Modernism held no attraction to me. If someone was a modernist, through my lens he was just an unbeliever.
More Mature Understanding of Modernism
In graduate school, I took a class, History of Fundamentalism, taught by B. Myron Cedarholm, because the normal teacher, Richard Weeks, was ill. In that class, I heard how that fundamentalism began as a movement in response to modernism or liberalism pervading and then controlling religious institutions. Modernism invaded Southern Baptist seminaries and the Presbyterian, Princeton Theological Seminary. None of this still mattered much for me. It registered as something written on paper, because I had no experience with it.
After marriage and a move to the San Francisco Bay Area to evangelize and then start a Baptist church, I came into recognition of modernism in a personal way, listening to a liberal radio talk show. I listened to the Ronn Owens Show and his interview with Uta Ranke-Heinemann, a female liberal theologian from Germany. She wrote, .Putting Away Childish Things: The Virgin Birth, the Empty Tomb, and Other Fairy Tales You Don’t Need to Believe to Have a Living Faith.
On a regular basis, I then encountered modernists in the San Francisco Bay Area. They went to modernist churches in almost every religious denomination. They often didn’t reject the Bible. Instead, they viewed scripture in a mystical way, not taking it literally. Modernists likely denied the supernatural aspects of scripture. Many times they allegorized the Bible to make it more malleable for their liberal cultural and social causes.
The Arrival of Postmodernism
As years passed, progressivism turned from modernism to postmodernism. Now postmodernists can make modernists seem at least moderate, if not conservative. Postmodernists rejected modernism. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I ask that you consider what I wrote in 2021:
Modernism then arose and said revelation wasn’t suitable for knowledge. Modernists could point to distinctions between religions and denominations and the wars fought over them. Knowledge instead came through scientific testing, man’s observations, consequently elevating man above God. Man could now do what he wanted because he changed the standard for knowledge. Faith for sure wasn’t good enough. With modernism, faith might make you feel good, but you proved something in naturalistic fashion to say you know it. Modernism then trampled the twentieth century, producing devastation, unsuccessful with its so-called knowledge.
Premoderns had an objective basis for knowledge, revelation from God. Moderns too, even if it wasn’t valid, had human reasoning, what they called “empirical proof.” Postmoderns neither believed or liked scripture or empiricism. This related to authority, whether God or government or parents, or whatever. No one should be able to tell somebody else what to do, which is to conform them to your truth or your reality. No one has proof. Institutions use language to construct power.
Postmodernism judged modernism a failure, pointing to wars, the American Indians and institutional bias, bigotry, and injustice. Since modernism constructed itself by power and language, a postmodernist possesses his own knowledge of good and evil, his own truth, by which to construct his own reality. No one will any more control him with power and language.
Dangerous New Acceptance of Modernism
Jordan Peterson
Modernists today very often stand with conservatives on certain principles. When I hear him talk about the Bible, and he does very much, Jordan Peterson sounds like a modernist. In recent days Peterson appeared in a new series on the Book of Exodus and apparently he wrote a book soon published on the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. He talked about that in a podcast. In his conversation on Exodus, his interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah, and in a talk about the book of Jonah, Peterson in recent days pushes his modernist position on tens of thousands of especially young men.
What excites many about Peterson’s talks is that he even talks about the Bible at all. He acts enthused about scripture. Peterson thinks the Bible is very important. He puts great effort into communicating his modernist position and interpretations of the Bible. Almost five years ago, I already warned about Peterson, still hoping he might change. He hasn’t and today he’s doubling down on his modernistic approach.
Modernism Versus Divine Verbal Plenary Inspiration
Jordan Peterson does not comment on the Bible like God inspired it. When I say inspired, I mean verbal plenary inspiration. God breathed out every word and all of them in the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Perhaps I will put more time into exposing the false interpretations and teachings of Jordan Peterson sometime in the future. In the meantime, please know that Jordan Peterson does not expose what Genesis, Exodus, or almost anything in the scripture actually says. He leads people astray with his false doctrine.
Don’t get me wrong. Peterson says many good things. You and I can rejoice in that. I’m happy he agrees with freedom of speech. He rejects a cancel culture. Peterson accepts a patriarchy. He does not, however, proclaim an orthodox view of God or the Bible, even though he refers to scripture all the time.
God and the Bible Are Dispensational (Part One)
God Wants Understanding of His Word
God delivered His Word for men to understand and by which they would live. Men must study it and then rightly divide it (2 Tim 2:15), but God made its meaning accessible (Rom 10:8-10, Deut 30:11-14). He will judge men according to it (John 12:48).
The Bible is not indecipherable. Its degree of opaqueness relates almost entirely to desire and belief. Proverbs 2:3-5 say these such things:
3 Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and] liftest up thy voice for understanding; 4 If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; 5 Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.
Still People May Not Understand God’s Word
Rebellious
On the other hand, Psalm 106:7 says,
Our fathers understood not thy wonders in Egypt; they remembered not the multitude of thy mercies; but provoked him at the sea, even at the Red sea.
God wanted understanding, but those who did not have “ears to hear” could not understand. Ezekiel 12:2 explains that some “have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they are a rebellious house.” Not understanding does not always relate to supernatural blinding. A student in class may not like the subject, so he does not comprehend or retain. Almost everything is lost on him. Furthermore, Jesus revealed in Matthew 13:13-15:
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. 14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: 15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
Satanic
A sufficient degree of the understanding of scripture becomes unattainable to the one not caring about it or wanting it. An unbeliever might hear and comprehend, but still miss what God says. This testifies to the uniqueness of scripture. Isaiah 8:17 says: “And I will wait upon the LORD, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him.” To some, God hides His face, and others will look for God, apparently finding Him because of that looking.
The Apostle Paul says Satan works toward deluminating blindness. “[T]he god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them” (2 Cor 4:4). What someone might ordinarily understand, he cannot because Satan keeps him from getting it through various Satanic means.
God Wrote His Word with Plain Meaning
Since God wrote a book to man to understand, a man would expect a reading of it in accordance with a plain meaning. God intended accessibility of its message. Men would live by what He said even from a child.
I didn’t make this up. But how I explain plain meaning is understanding scripture like the people heard it in that day. What did the words mean and how were they used at the very time men wrote and received them?
What was God saying in Genesis to the original audience of Genesis? Or, what was the Lord saying in Matthew to the original audience of Matthew? When someone gets that interpretation, what God was really saying, what is that called? Someone might call that a literal interpretation or a grammatical-historical interpretation.
An original audience, the children of Israel, received the original manuscripts of the first five books of the Bible, called the Torah or Pentateuch. As they read through those writings, they received more understanding of each part as they also knew more of the whole. When God gave other inspired writings through various other human authors, such as Joshua, Judges, historical books, and poetic ones, the meaning of the previously given books, the Torah, did not change in meaning. Genesis still means the same as it did when the first readers first set eyes on it.
God Changed His Methods and Manner of Operation Sometimes
Different Eras or Ages
As God gave more writings, one could understand more of His will. Through history, sometimes God changed His methods or His manner of operations. God didn’t change. As He continued communicating with mankind, He used different, sometimes new genres. He spoke in different ways. God used symbolic or figurative language among other types of writing.
Looking back at proceeding time periods, historians recognize eras, ages, or periods of time. They may disagree with the dividing points for these periods, but they admit shifts in thinking and lifestyle. You’ve heard of premodern, modern, and postmodern as a description. Surely you’ve heard said, ancient, middle, and modern. Broader periods can break down into even more detail.
The Bible is Dispensational
The changes of methods and manners of God as seen in scripture also divide into epochs of time. In order to systematize a literal understanding of scripture, grammatical and historical, men organized scripture into dispensations. The system of interpretation became known as dispensationalism. Dispensation- alism recognized the continuity and discontinuity of God’s methods and manner of operation across these various ages.
God is dispensational in His revelation of Him and His will. The Bible is a dispensational book. Any literal or true view of history is dispensational.
Old Testament Priority
Succeeding new generations of recipients of original scripture could understand what they read in their day. Scripture did not change in meaning. However, God makes prophesies. He uses prophets to tell the future. The understanding of a divine prophecy could increase with time, closer to or after its fulfillment (cf. Daniel 12:4). The Babylonian captivity shed light on the prophesies of captivity. The return to the land after captivity shed light on the prophesies of return to the land.
The added understanding with a fulfillment of prophecy is not a change in meaning. God wanted understanding of what He said. He gave His Word to man to be lived. God meant the original audience of the Old Testament to understand its meaning. “Hearing” meant understanding (Deut 19:20, 21:21, 31:12-13). God did inspire the Old Testament with a New Testament priority. The Bible does not read as though God a thousand or more years later said what He really was saying in what He earlier inspired.
More to Come
Flood Lore and Divine Interventionism
In 2012 David Montgomery, a geologist at the University of Washington, Seattle, wrote The Rocks Don’t Lie, which he says is a geologist’s investigation of the Noahic flood. I talk about the flood at least every month, sometimes every week. It’s important enough for evangelism and apologetics to talk about all the time.
Peter in his second epistle and chapter three uses the flood as a historical argument for Divine interventionism and against uniformitarianism in a defense of the second coming of Jesus Christ. He writes in 2 Peter 3:4-6:
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
Peter is saying that things don’t continue as they were from the beginning of creation. The world, that then was, perished, because of a worldwide flood. Ignorance is a willing ignorance, so volitional, not intellectual.
The second coming is a problem for unbelievers, because they will not get away with whatever they do. They will give an account to their Lord. They may try to explain it away with uniformitarianism (things just continue as they are without divine intervention), but the Bible (2 Peter 3:1-2) and flood history (2 Peter 3:5-7) discount their view of the world. God will intervene and He has intervened.
One bit of evidence outside the Bible for the flood people call, “flood lore.” I do not know if “lore” is the best term for it, but it refers to the flood story found in numbers of cultures.
A youtube notification sent me to a Harvard speech by David Montgomery, saying that it was seven years old. In a thirty minute drive, I listened to twenty minutes of his speech and then stopped, because I knew where he headed.
Montgomery grew up in a religious family that went to church. It sounded like a liberal church that taught the Bible was a book of moral stories. When someone asked him to come to Tibet to help with a project as the geologist, he went. While there, he saw damage from a very large flood. He knew it. He saw it was a lake made from a glacier damming up a river. A glacier does not do that well. Its poor blockage ability led to a gigantic flood.
While in Tibet, Montgomery interview the locals, who already knew about the flood and talked about it. This surprised him, because he just saw it himself. This sent him the direction of thinking about local flood lore. This stories occur all over the world. At this point, I turned off the speech. I arrived at my destination, but I didn’t want to hear any more. I knew what he was doing. You have maybe started reading a story where the ending becomes obvious and you can’t continue.
To discredit flood lore, explain each story away with an account of a local flood. Or, do that enough times to say that these individual smaller events explain the stories of the big one. They don’t, but men know how a worldwide flood hurts their world view.
Men look at the present world in a uniformitarian manner. They know things happened, but they must use a natural explanation. They say the world is billions of years old. The flood can and should change that explanation. It disturbed the crime scene, so to speak. With tremendous power, God transformed the topography of the earth. They are not seeing the same world as the one before the flood. The pressure God brought on everything in the world affected what man theorizes that he sees.
The world originating by natural causes justifies men being their own bosses. God will not intervene. He hasn’t. Yet, He has, and He will again. Peter makes that argument in 2 Peter. Flood lore agrees with this divine interventionism. Everyone will give an account to God.
The Conflicting, Perplexing Calvinistic Doctrine of Free Will (Part Four)
A Hebrew word for “repent” in the Old Testament is nocham and it’s mainly used of God. It first appears in Genesis 6:6: “And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.” The Old Testament makes those kinds of statements several times. Compatible with that, consider the last two verses of the Old Testament (Malachi 4:5-6):
5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: 6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.
Elijah comes, who is John the Baptist, and preaches to Israel. The LORD motivates Israel with His coming and smiting the earth with a curse. If they listen, God withholds the curse. If they don’t listen, the curse comes. The curse may or may not come. This is a warning. So what happens? A relatively few listen. The rest are cursed. This isn’t predetermination. This is how the sovereignty of God works. God does intervene with the warning and then later with the curse or punishment.
To read Malachi 4:5-6 any other way, complicating it with a wrong view of determinism, would pervert the plain meaning. The two ideas of Genesis 6 and Malachi 4 are complimentary: (1) God repents of what He was going to do because of what men have done, and (2) Men repent and God changes what He was going to do. Both of those concepts, which are in scripture in multiple places, speak of men, including unsaved ones, having a free will. They can make choices.
Men making choices doesn’t limit God. God makes up the rules, His laws, and He uses the responses of men to orchestrate His will according to providence. Man is not the determiner. He doesn’t make the rules or the laws. The Lord uses the wrong response by man and the right response by man both to still accomplish His purpose.
God does predetermine events. He knows everything. He has the power and wisdom to do whatever He wills. His will is perfect. Because all of this, God has free will to the greatest extent.
The Influence of Calvinism
Calvinists say, “Man doesn’t have free will, he has natural will, which is not free.” There are many ideas behind it, but nothing in scripture backs it up. The idea, that I read, is two main influences on the Protestant view of free will, Augustine and then later Luther’s writing, The Bondage of the Will. The Bible will get you a certain distance toward the point of Calvinism about free will, but it doesn’t get you all the way.
Calvinism, out of what seems like desperation, crafts a title, like R. C. Sproul uses, the “humanist view of free will.” He surmises this view is the majority view of believers, but when I read the view, I can’t imagine anyone believes it. Is this a scientific study based on poll research? He defines it this way:
[T]he choices we make are in no wise conditioned or determined by any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. Let me say that again: this view says that we make our choices spontaneously. Nothing previous to the choice determines the choice—no prejudice, prior disposition, or prior inclination—the choice comes literally on its own as a spontaneous action by the person.
Every choice comes because of prejudice, prior disposition or inclination. A high enough percentage thinks there is prior inclination or disposition, that I would say everyone believes that, just the opposite of what Sproul says.
The Bondage of the Will
Just because someone acts on the basis of his strongest inclination at the moment of that choice, terminology used by Jonathan Edwards in his work, Freedom of Will, does not contradict freedom of will. An unsaved man lacks in moral ability, but there are other means by which someone can choose Jesus Christ. He has the freedom to choose.
Romans 3:10-12 say man neither seeks after God nor understands God. Ephesians 2:1-5 say the lost are dead. I read though that the truth sets some free from being a slave to sin (John 8:32-36). All these though say to me that man can’t initiate the salvation. That’s also what I read in the Bible; we love Him because He first loved us (1 John 4:19).
Can there be spiritual death and bondage to sin and free will? I’m writing, yes, but it’s also because it’s what I read in scripture. If man can’t do anything, because he’s in bondage, then he’s not responsible for anything. Yet, he is responsible. He’s responsible because God does reveal Himself to man. I read this in Romans 1 among other places.
When men asked Jesus in Luke 13:23, are there few that be saved? His answer put it on man and his obvious not striving to enter into the narrow gate. Everything fits this way. You read the parable of the soils in Matthew 13. Jesus starts teaching in parables so as not to harden their hearts. A less hard heart results in greater reception to the seed. The truth can harden a heart. Jesus talks about four types of hearts and all of these are about reception of the truth.
The Word of God, God’s Revelation
The Word of God, God’s revelation, is the supernatural cure for spiritual death and bondage to sin. Hebrews 4:12 says the Word of God is powerful. It is the sword of the Spirit (Eph 6:17).
Revelation that defeats bondage and spiritual death starts with general revelation, which is general in its audience. This is the grace of God that appears to all men (Titus 2:11). Jesus said the truth is what sets someone free (Jn 8:32). Determination isn’t what sets people free. Regeneration isn’t what is said to set people free. Jesus freed dead Lazarus from the grave with His Words (Jn 11:43). God said, let there be light and there was light (Gen 1:3). Paul wrote, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Rom 10:17).
Faith is not a work. It is a gift. Philippians 1:29, “For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake.” It is given to believe on Christ. 2 Peter 1:1, “Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” These saints obtained like precious faith.
God gives faith. God gives it by means of His revelation. He gives it by means of the Word of God. Without revelation and without the Word of God, someone cannot believe. God initiates salvation. Salvation is of the Lord.
Tension
I don’t mind the claim of “a tension.” I think there’s a tension. The tension comes with two possible questions. For the Calvinist the question concerns why someone or who is predetermined to Heaven or predetermined to Hell. For a non Calvinist at least like myself the question concerns why someone responds to God’s revelation and some don’t. I have many verses behind the tension that I believe. All of scripture fits that tension. The Calvinist says something like, God is sovereign over everything and He doesn’t have to answer, like the Potter doesn’t have to answer to clay.
I can agree with the Calvinist about tension. God can do whatever He wants, and it’s always righteous. He’s always righteous. We are clay and He is the Potter. However, the Potter gives answers all over His Word.
Let’s say you’re the parent and your child asks why? You answer, I’m your Dad, that’s why. That’s true, but that’s not the kind of answer that we get again and again and again in scripture.
I would say that man’s will is in bondage. Maybe I and the Calvinist agree. Perhaps it’s just how the bondage is removed. Scripture says that God’s revelation is the delivering agent. Since the Calvinist believes in determinism, it seems to me that he makes up this regeneration by the Holy Spirit that precedes faith. I’ll leave it at that.
Faith pleases God and faith comes by hearing the Word of God. God isn’t glorified by adding something to scripture even if it’s for the purpose of glorifying God. I’ve noticed with Calvinists today, that for apparently completely depending on God’s sovereignty, they use Finney-esque new measures to accomplish church growth. I can listen to most Calvinists and hear them tie church growth success to human methodology. This is where I tell them I’m more Calvinistic than the Calvinists. I’m not trolling them. I think it’s true.
In another ironic turn, I say, the truth shall set you free. The Calvinistic view of free will is not biblical. It is not the truth. I have often heard and read Calvinists say that they just got their Calvinism from scripture. I can’t imagine anyone reading the Bible and getting a deterministic position. Unlike the Bible, it is conflicting and perplexing. From the very beginning of scripture to the end, the Bible tells a story in which men make choices based on free will.
The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Postmodernism, and Critical Theory
People in general don’t want to be told what to do. This arises from the sin nature of mankind, a cursed rebellion passed down from Adam. So people won’t have to do what an authority tells them, they disparage the credibility of it. They especially attack God in diverse manners so He won’t hinder or impede what they want.
Premodernism, Modernism, Postmodernism, Critical Theory, and Epistemology
The premoderns, even if some did not view themselves or the world correctly, related everything to God. Truth was objective. They knew truth either by natural or special revelation of God. If God said it, it was true, no matter what their opinion. Many invented various means to deal with their own contradictions, but God remained God.
Modernism then arose and said revelation wasn’t suitable for knowledge. Modernists could point to distinctions between religions and denominations and the wars fought over them. Knowledge instead came through scientific testing, man’s observations, consequently elevating man above God. Man could now do what he wanted because he changed the standard for knowledge. Faith for sure wasn’t good enough. With modernism, faith might make you feel good, but you proved something in naturalistic fashion to say you know it. Modernism then trampled the twentieth century, producing devastation, unsuccessful with its so-called knowledge.
Premoderns had an objective basis for knowledge, revelation from God. Moderns too, even if it wasn’t valid, had human reasoning, what they called “empirical proof.” Postmoderns neither believed or liked scripture or empiricism. This related to authority, whether God or government or parents, or whatever. No one should be able to tell somebody else what to do, which is to conform them to your truth or your reality. No one has proof. Institutions use language to construct power.
Postmodernism judged modernism a failure, pointing to wars, the American Indians and institutional bias, bigotry, and injustice. Since modernism constructed itself by power and language, a postmodernist possesses his own knowledge of good and evil, his own truth, by which to construct his own reality. No one will any more control him with power and language.
Critical theory proceeds from postmodernism, but is ironically constructed to sound like modernism. It’s not a theory. Theory is by definition supposed to be rational and associated with observations backed by data. Critical theory criticizes, but it isn’t a theory, rather a desire. People desire to do what they want and don’t want someone telling them what to do, so they deconstruct the language to serve their desires and change the outcome. In the United States especially, theorists criticize white males, those who constructed language and power for their own advantage. According to their theories, white men kept down women, all the other races, and sexual preferences.
The postmodernism behind critical theory procures its knowledge with total subjectivity. Those proficient in theory based on their own divination know what’s good and evil, making them woke to this secret knowledge. They have eaten of the tree. White men are evil. The patriarchy is evil. Anyone contesting gender fluidity and trangenderism is evil.
Epistemology is a field of study that explores and judges how we know what we know and whether we really know it, that it is in fact knowledge. What is a sufficient source of knowledge? You can say you know, but do you really know? The Bible uses the term “know” and “knowledge” a lot. Biblical knowledge is certain, because God reveals it. You receive knowledge when you learn what God says. You can’t say the same thing about what you experience or feel.
The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil
In Genesis 2 (vv. 9, 17), what was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? In the same context, Genesis 3:5-7 say:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods,, knowing good and evil. 6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. 7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
If Adam and Eve depended on what God knew, they would not have eaten of the forbidden tree. Instead they trusted their own knowledge. The tree wasn’t the tree of the knowledge of good. God provided that knowledge. Just listen to Him. Eating of the tree brought the knowledge of evil. The knowledge of evil, what someone might call, carnal knowledge, reminds me of three verses in the New Testament.
1 Corinthians 5:1, It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.
Ephesians 5:3, But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints.
Romans 16:19, For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.
The Chiastic Structure of the Bible and History and an Immediately Appearing Earth (Young Earth)
How did the physical universe get here? When you read Genesis 1, it reads like what I am titling, an “Immediately Appearing Earth” (IAE). In other words, the creation of or origin of the earth wasn’t a process. You will find many arguments for the young earth or immediately appearing earth. What does the Bible say? Or what does God say? Let’s admit, no one was there to see it, except for God, so we should trust what He said. God created the universe and He gave the account of what He did. If we believe He created it, we should also believe how He said He did it.
Genesis 1 doesn’t indicate a process to the origin of the earth. What we read is immediate appearance. The grammar and syntax of Genesis 1 show this, but the structure of the entire Bible also portrays it. The biblical authors very often wrote the narratives of Old Testament or Hebrews texts or passages in what is called a chiastic structure, also called an inverted parallelism.
The entire book of Lamentations takes the chiastic structure as well as it’s middle chapter. The chiastic structure of the whole book emphasizes the third chapter of five, and then the third chapter, the lengthiest of the five, three times longer than the other chapters, is also chiastic, giving a clue to the point of Lamentations. The central axis of the book is Lamentations 3:22-36. With none to comfort Jerusalem in her affliction, she comforts herself when she remembers that the LORD is merciful and compassionate, faithful and good to those who seek Him.
The Bible also point to an immediately appearing earth as seen in its structure. One could go much more detailed than the following, but consider this schematic.
The Bible starts with creation and ends with creation. The chiastic structure moves forward from the first creation, which is the doctrine of first things, and moves backward from second creation, the doctrine of last things. The Bible and history pivots on Jesus Christ. He is the beginning and the ending, the alpha and omega, but He is also everything in between. In the diagram above, the chiasm forms an apex, where Jesus stands at the top. That’s what this structure shows more than anything.
God creates in the first creation and in the second creation. They are parallel in the chiasm. If the second creation is an immediate appearing earth, which it is, then the first also is. It must be. Other parallels indicate all this is an existing structure. One that supports the position of an immediate appearing earth is that God provides the light for both the first creation and the second creation. It’s a kind of tip that says God doesn’t need our science. He does want our faith though.
Does anyone question the immediate appearance of the second earth? Does anyone posit a process for the future earth? They argue for a very slow process for the first earth and for reasons unnecessary if they believe in creation in the first place.
The ground out of which God formed Adam in Genesis 2:17 is the same ground out of which He formed the animals in Genesis 2:19, both Hebrew words for ground related to the Hebrew word for man, Adam. Animals appear instantaneously, as does Adam. None of this is a process. None reads like a process.
What makes Adam unique to the animals is the breath of God, the spirit in man (Genesis 2:7), breathed into him, which is the image of God in man (Genesis 1:26). This is not a development. Both animals and man appear with age at a necessary degree of difficulty, one of impossibility without the power of God, that is the same as the original appearance of the heavens and the earth. The Hebrew verb bara, to create something out of nothing, is used with heavens and earth (1:1), animals (1:21), and man (1:27).
Hebrews 11:3, “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”
*************
I wanted to have the above post out last night and wasn’t sure I could write more. I want to point out at least one more chiastic structure that relates, I believe, to an Immediately Appearing Earth. Man immediately appeared with his own creation in Genesis 1 and the expansion on that account in Genesis 2. Man immediately is recreated in his resurrection and glorification. This structure matches that of the earth. Man waits for His redemption as does creation groan for its day of redemption (Romans 8:22).
The Big Bang Didn’t Happen But It’s A Useful Hypothesis
The universe started with a big bang, but not a Big Bang. It will end with a Big Bang though. The following line didn’t originate with me, but I still like to say, “I believe in the Big Bang; it just hasn’t happened yet.” It’s a laugh line.
Evolution’s Strongest Argument–Creationists are Ignorant! & the Cosmological Argument Examined
Class #1 of my Evidences for Creation class is now available. In it, the strongest argument for evolution–which is not any particular fact, but the claim that creationists cannot really do science and are ignorant–is examined, as is the cosmological argument. At the end, the outline for the class, which was on themes in Genesis, is examined.
I believe the video will be helpful to you in speaking to those who reject their Creator based on evolution. Please feel free to “like” the video on YouTube, comment on it here and on the KJB1611 channel, and share it with others.
On some devices there will be an audio issue, but that will, Lord willing, get fixed in the future.
Watch the class Evidences for Creation #1 on YouTube by clicking here, or watch the embedded video below:
–TDR
Recent Comments