today was a bit of a frustrating day for me--partly because of my pride, but mostly because i was just disappointed.
in sunday school and in conversing with different people i came to the realization that we, as Christians, so often allow what the world thinks to influence what WE think. We use thoughts from the secular world and then attempt to mould thoughts from the Bible TO those thoughts. i admit that i do this all the time, without even realizing it. i came to the conclusion today that so often i put my trust in what the World tells me before putting my trust in what God has told me.
sure, there are those who say, "if it is the truth, it will stand up. the Bible isn't necessarily needed to defend the truth." This statement however, seems to me to be rather illogical. i agree, it would be true if we weren't sinners and therefore ALWAYS had the ability to sift truth from lies. But the fact is, we are indeed fallen, we have fallen short of the glory of God, and are therefore imperfect beings, and consequently NEED the working of the Holy Spirit and God's Word to give us guidance. Truth cannot be determined independently of God:
Psalm 111:10 -- the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Proverbs 1:7 -- the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.
1 Corinthians 2:14-- The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
it saddens me to think that often times we come to the Bible with a presupposition and then attempt to fit what the Bible says with what our worldy and carnal presuppositions dictate is true. Should it not be the other way round? FIRST we must fear God! THEN comes wisdom, knowledge and understanding. Oh, how often i forget this.
An example of this is evolution and the creation of the world (which we discussed today at church). There are those who believe that the world could be millions of years old, whereas i am (FIRMLY) rooted in the belief in a literal six day, (~24 hour day) creation. who is right (even though i believe that the Bible is pretty clear in a literal 6 day creation--i won't elaborate but if you do have questions feel free to ask), really isn't of super importance--there will be things we shall never understand until Christ returns. What is important is this:
Why would any Christian want to take man’s fallible dating methods and use them to impose an idea on the infallible Word of God? Christians who accept billions of years are in essence saying that man’s word is infallible, but God’s Word is fallible!
This is the crux of the issue. When Christians have agreed with the world that they can accept man’s fallible dating methods to interpret God’s Word, they have agreed with the world that the Bible can’t be trusted. They have essentially sent out the message that man, by himself, independent of revelation, can determine truth and impose this on God’s Word. Once this ‘door’ has been opened regarding Genesis, ultimately it can happen with the rest of the Bible.
You see, if Christian leaders have told the next generation that one can accept the world’s teachings in geology, biology, astronomy, etc., and use these to (re)interpret God’s Word, then the door has been opened for this to happen in every area, including morality.
Yes, one can be a conservative Christian and preach authoritatively from God’s Word from Genesis 12 onwards. But once you have told people to accept man’s dating methods, and thus should not take the first chapters of Genesis as they are written, you have effectively undermined the Bible’s authority! This attitude is destroying the church in America.
So, the issue is not ‘young Earth’ versus ‘old Earth,’ but this: Can fallible, sinful man be in authority over the Word of God?
A ‘young-Earth’ view admittedly receives the scoffing from a majority of the scientists. But Paul warned us in 1 Corinthians 8:2, ‘And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.’ Compared to what God knows, we know ‘next door to nothing!’ This is why we should be so careful to let God speak to us through His Word, and not try to impose our ideas on God’s Word.It’s also interesting to note that this verse is found in the same passage where Paul warns that ‘knowledge puffeth up.’ Academic pride is found throughout our culture. Therefore, many Christian leaders would rather believe the world’s fallible academics, than the simple clear words of the Bible.
(bold= my editing. taken from an article by Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis)
anyways, evolution is just one example of the way in which many Christians have trusted more in what the world dictates than what the Bible says (irregardless of who is right and wrong) but other issues came up in the car ride home, such as abortion, voting etc. These are huge topics, and i don't claim to have all the answers--in fact, i have almost none. Who is right or wrong really isn't of importance. What is important is that we are basing our beliefs on the inerrant Word of God, rather than the fallible thoughts of mankind. it is CRUCIAL that that which we believe is deeply rooted and entrenched in the Word.
[edit: i've transferred over some comments from my xanga where i also posted this because i thought they were interesting ^_^]
S'abonner à :
Publier des commentaires (Atom)
15 commentaires:
I really don't want to get into the whole evolution / how old the world is thing, but isn't it worth remembering that the Bible was written by men, too? I mean, obviously academia isn't infallible, but neither, by their own accounts, are the men who wrote the scriptures. As far as I'm concerned, the six day creation was just a convenient way to explain what people had no idea about at the time. Whether or not it's "right" is irrelevant if you truly believe God was involved in creation - no matter if it was six days or six billion years.
Not to beat an already broken drum, but maybe God created the world with the appearance of age - just like He did with Adam and Eve. It's so true, though, how we continually try to develop finite and simple answers to things that are likely only adequately revealed through that which is Infinite. Like, I don't think that there's any way that the physical evidence we now have about Creation and the Biblical account and truth of it contradict - it's, as you say, our own carnal and subjective interpretations that scew reality.
anonymous--
you're right, there is no disputing that the Bible was written by man and you're right, humans are fallible creatures--i quite agree that perfection is a standard that we cannot achieve on our own. HOWEVER, that being said, i DO believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. How does this work then? How can the Bible be perfect and yet written by man who is imperfect?
Well, i believe that the Bible was written with the finger of God (Exodus 31:19) and that even the disciples were promised the Holy Spirit who would enable to them to write Scripture (John 16:13-14). All this to say, that i believe that God spoke to man and used man to write His words--so it wasn't man by himself who was writing the words, but man with the power of the Holy Spirit.
Additionally, if God is God, would He not have the power to protect His words, regardless of how He chose them to come to being?
As for six days or six billion years being irrelevant--i would agree and disagree in a sense.
In all honesty, i don't think evolution is that big of a deal, it doesn't change the fact that God loves mankind and desires to have a relationship with each and every single one of us. It doesn't change the fact that the fundamental problem that separates man from having that relationship with God is that we are imperfect and God is perfect. Just like oil and water cannot mix, so it is the same with perfection and imperfection. And it doesn't change the fact that Jesus Christ came to pay the final sacrifice for our imperfections (sin) and in doing so created a bridge so that we, as humans wouldn't need to strive to become perfect by doing good works. Finally it shouldn't change whether someone chooses to acknowlege their need for Christ and ask Him to be a part of their lives. So i agree with you in that sense--its rather peripheral.
HOWEVER, i would say that for believers it does make a difference, theology wise. If the earth is millions of years old, and evolution was the means by which God chose to bring about the earth and humans (theistic evolution) then at the core, the whole premise of Christianity is flawed (realize this is my personal belief--there are many Christians who hold to theistic evolution, and it doesn't change the fact that they are awesome, God-fearing, Christ-loving men and women).
Essentially, evolution dictates that in order for new, more efficient life to occur, some sort of death must occur (survival of the fittest in a sense). So if one holds to evolution, then even before Adam and Eve there was death and suffering. This means that the choice humans made wasn't the reason for evil and suffering entering the world. And thus, if there was no 'Fall of man', why would we need redemption? if there was no Fall, then why would we need Jesus Christ?
i believe that death-- "to dust you shall return" (Genesis 3:19)-- came into the world as a result of mankind's choice to sin, and did not exist PRIOR to adam and eve. This therefore precludes me from accepting the theory of evolution, theistic or not.
having said this, i wanted to add a caveat--these are MY thoughts, in saying these things i realize that there are many who would disagree and so i'm not trying to open the door for debate here. i'm simply stating my point of view.
I think the biggest problem I have with it isn't just that evolution makes so much scientific sense, but that I don't see any reason why the Christian story of creation would be any more valid than any other - Hindu, Muslim, whatever.
hehe thats a huge topic anonymous. i think..that sometime soon i shall write a post about that just for you ^_^
at one point it was heresy to believe the earth revolved around the sun.
i'm just saying...because we are so fallible and limited, there may be some degree of interpretation error when it comes to our understanding of the bible.
oh i definitely concur, i think i was just saying that we should strive to not let secular thoughts influence the way we interpret the Bible. Rather, we should pray that the Holy Spirit would move in us and grant us wisdom to understand and interpret the Word, and let those gleanings affect the way we think about secular issues.
hmm its late. i hope what i just said made sense.
I'd like to challenge you on something ...
Since we are fallible, I think it would be safe to say our translations are fallible and to that extent, do you think your firm belief in the world being created in 6 literal days does not take into account that possibility? I'm not saying that God's message is fallible but as Louisa said, our interpretations may be. The secular world can reveal a lot about nature that may contradict our original interpretations of events (which may be been wrong to begin with), however, if we ignore secular views about certain (not all) things I think it restricts us from finding God's truth. (btw, we may put science in a secular context but I'm pretty sure there are Christians who do work in that field) An example would be the way the pharisees interpreted an eye for an eye. Jesus had to correct them in the way they interpreted the law (which probably would've sounded absurd during those days) and so you're right, we are fallible and so in our humility we should examine our own interpretations before discounting something.
oh i agree that my firm belief in the world being created in 6 literal days could be false--i'm not saying i'm 100% sure on that or that i know the answer to everything about creation--if i did i would be God. and i'm obviously not God.
And so, though i am firmly rooted in the literal 6 day creation (because of a great deal of theological backing and from talking to many biblical scholars and theologians) i'm not saying i'm right. if there is a theory out there that would be a better fit then sure, i'm open to hearing it and considering it. i'm not a bigot (or at least i hope i'm not) and therefore, do consider other opinions, knowing that i'm a) fallible b) not fully knowledgeable etc. so am i discounting anything? no. but i think if we peruse deeper, currently theology wise--if we choose to believe in the fall of man then the literal 6 day creation is one of the only theories that answers that question right now.
secondly, i think there is a difference between comparing my firm stance on creation to the pharisees, and so i would be careful in doing so. the reason is this: whether one believes in the literal 6 day creation or theistic evolution does not change the fact that mankind is sinful--regardless of how sin came into being, and regardless of how man got here, the fact is that we're still imperfect and require the saving grace of Christ that we may have a relationship with God. believing in either theory doesn't change that fact. and thus really, believing either theory or neither will not save us in any sort of way, one theory isn't the means by which we will be saved or not. evolution and the creation is quite peripheral in a sense (although i do believe that it impacts theology).
however, the way the pharisees did interpret the law changed the way they would live their lives-- relying on themselves instead of the power of the Holy Spirit, and thereby glorifying themselves instead of Christ. Jesus challenged their thoughts because depending on how they viewed sin, sanctification and justification it would alter the way they lived radically. He showed them that they could not save themselves by obeying the law, but by putting their faith in Christ.
Thirdly, i agree that the world can reveal a great deal about nature. Romans 1:20 makes it clear that God's testimony has been revealed in the things that have been created. However, my point is that we should not allow the secular world to dictate how we interpret scripture. Rather, we should study the Bible inductively and find the truths and apply it to our lives. If the secular world contradicts what the Bible has to say, then one must be right and one must be wrong, based on the principles of logic. Now, seeing as the Bible is inerrant, what the world says must be wrong. i'm not telling us to ignore what the secular world says, but i do believe that the secular world and secular science knows very little and is QUITE erroneous in things such as carbon and radioactive dating. thus, for us as Christians to believe theories that rest on shaky foundation instead of believing the Word which is solid and sharper than any double edged sword is dangerous and ultimately sinful, for it glorifies man more than God. can science and Christianity go together hand in hand? i believe so, but some of the theories such as evolution are just that. Theories. Which is speculation, and consequently the consession that mankind doesn't have all the answers from his own work.
i hope that clarified things. i do want to say one more thing
if i sounded prideful in my post, i did not mean to--i thought i emphasized it in the beginning when i said i need to pray for more humility. however if i did, i apologize.
Claiming that carbon dating is inaccurate or wrong is like claiming 1 + 1 = 3, or 2 + 2 = 5. The conclusions that led to the use of carbon dating were the result of observation and calculation - if you're right and it's "erroneous", the world that God has created for us is, in effect, a lie.
in the studies that i've done for classes and chemistry, engineering, physics, geology, archaeology professors at U of T that i've met, there is a growing body that would support the fallacious nature of carbon dating in proving the earth is millions of years old. there are a variety of reasons for this which i will let you research on your own, unless you insist--in which case i can pull out my textbooks and notes.
Now, if at a vibrant research community like U of T there are numerous researchers (who are top tier researchers and professors) who have found flaws in carbon dating techniques pertaining to millions of years (carbon dating is effective only up to a certain point) then does that say that they too cannot add? ^_^
additionally, a growing body of researchers support this theory worldwide--if you do a search of scientific journals there will be articles there too. SO, perhaps there is debate over whether or not carbon dating is accurate or not, making it less cut and dry than you have put it.
(but again, i concede that i could be wrong, after all i don't have firsthand knowledge of this...just what i've reasearched for classes and on my own time)
"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." 2Peter3:8
"For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night" Psalm 90:4
I don't necessarily believe that 6 days literally meant 24 hours, however, it could've. what is 24 hours to God? Are hours and is not time, in the sense that we calculate it only our perception of it? God lives outside time - He created it! so if He wanted to create the world in 6 days and which look to us look like 6 billion years, or whatever, what is there to stop Him? I'm sure that He could have done it in a few seconds, or in no time at all - but i like that it took 6 days. i think it is a funny thing for us as humans to use such things as carbon dating and time to interpret something so old as our earth and the universe - so old and so young at the same time - especially when there are so many things that we do not understand. i dunno, and i'm sure i'm wrong, and maybe this just confuses everything, but the way i see it is what is there to say that "time" always flowed (or flows) at the rate of 60min per hour? who can measure time? and what happens in between time? God knows. I think i have rambled off topic... i will just post now and hope that at least half of this makes sense.
one thing though - i agree with you lydia, about the fall - we as believers just call the first 12 chapters of genesis a myth because of the fall, it was real, and is so important to the whole story, of human history, and God's redemptive plan. ok, i'll go now
(the above was not me, clearly)
As with anything, carbon dating is not entirely precise - we can't find remains of a tree, for example, and say that it is 3461 years old. However, there is a big difference between 6000 and one million, never mind hundreds of millions. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not an expert on the topic, but my opinion is based on repeatable observations and experiments, and I have a hard time believing that there is a possibility that they could be so incorrect as to allow for a world that is 6000 years old.
If I have two identical ice cubes placed in a room of consistent temperature and I measure how much has melted over a given period of time from one of them, is that not a good indication of what might happen with the other one? If the first one melted halfway in one hour, would I not be able to say that, under ideal conditions, if the other was melted halfway, it had been out for an hour? That's the basic principle of carbon dating, except the decay of the molecule is not dependant on temperature or anything of the sort.
As always, I apologize if this comes across as an attack - I'm just trying to understand.
anonymous-- i understand what you're saying, and yet at the same time your analogy of two ice cubes is quite different than carbon dating.
Half an amount of carbon-14 will convert back to nitrogen 14 in about 5700 years. This is its half life. So, in two half-lives only 1 quarter is left. Anything over about 50,000 years old (where accuracy decreases and inference increases) should theoretically have no detectable carbon-14 left. BUT plants use less carbon dioxide containing carbon-14 and thus upon examination test older than they really are, and different plants test differently--thus there has to be a correction made.
As well, the ratio of carbon-14 and carbon-12 in the atmosphere has not been constant throughout time--the industrial era and the burning of fossil fuels released carbon dioxide that was depleted in carbon-14 which would make things look older than they really were. as well there was a rise in carbon-dioxide 14 which would have made things look younger than they actually were.
to be continued..haha i have to go to class.
Obviously it wasn't the best analogy :P
My point was that it's scientifically measurable; it's not a 'guess'. If accuracy decreases after 50 000 years...aren't we already at 50 000? Isn't that more than 6 000? What I'm trying to say, I suppose, is that ultimately it's going to come down to faith in the Bible and God's word, or faith in a systematic, repeatable method of testing. Personally, I'm going with the latter - the accuracy of the testing past 50 000 years is moot; carbon dating wasn't used to determine the age of the earth anyhow.
...that was rambly.
Publier un commentaire