Historical Adam Discussion on Reformed Forum

Rick Phillips

The link below leads to an excellent discussion of the historical reliability of Genesis and a response to the compromises some Evangelicals are making with regard to the historicity of Adam. Rick Phillips does a great job of explaining why it is important to hold to Biblical inerrancy and stand firm against a cultural conformity to the passing fancies of scientism. Great stuff!


http://reformedforum.org/ctc212/


Click here for a direct download of the audio.

Cornelius Van Til - "Why I Believe In God"

If you would like to know more about Dr. Cornelius Van Til, the father of presuppositional apologetics, you may find the following video useful. It contains the narration of a long letter written by Van Til to defend his belief in God, and more specifically the Christian faith. This is extremely thought provoking and insightful material, and even includes some interesting autobiographical information regarding Van Til's upbringing in Holland (you'll love his jokes about wooden shoes).

Here is a great example of Van Til's presuppositional method:
  

"... I propose to argue that unless God is back of everything you cannot find meaning in anything. I cannot even argue for belief in Him without already having taken Him for granted. And, similarly, I contend that you cannot argue against belief in Him unless you also first take Him for granted. Arguing about God's existence, I hold, is like arguing about air. You may affirm that air exists, and I that it does not, but as we debate the point we are both breathing air all the time." 
- 2:43 on the video


I especially liked his critique of the presupposition behind rationalistic atheism:

"You have made the reach of your intellect the standard of what is possible or not possible. You have thereby virtually determined that you intend never to meet a fact that points to God. Facts, to be facts at all - facts, that is, with decent scientific and philosophic standing - must have your stamp instead of that of God upon them as their virtual creator."
- 44:30 on the video

Cornelius Van Til - "Why I Believe in God"



There is much more on Van Til here: www.VanTil.info

Evolution: Science Beyond Its Boundaries

There is much talk these days about accommodating the Bible to the supposed "fact" of evolution, whether it is possible to retain belief in a literal Adam and Eve, how God could have used evolutionary processes to create, etc. You've probably seen it somewhere (since it seems to be everywhere), so I won't give examples.

The problem I see in this whole discussion is . . . too many Evangelicals are taking the current state of scientific theory as unassailable and unalterable "fact". Scientific theory by its very nature is constantly changing and always subject to refutation as more evidence is discovered. Today's evolutionary theories are quite a bit different from those that existed 10 years ago, and 50 years ago, and 100 years ago (most evolutionary "theory" is actually hypothesis, despite what they claim). The idea of evolution is itself evolving! I doubt it is reaching a higher form, however.


The reason theories and hypotheses change so much is that scientists can only build them from the tiny slice of empirical facts they presently have available (tiny in comparison to all of the facts that exist, or even all of the facts relevant to the subject). As they discover more facts, they are forced to adapt - or even revoke - their theories and hypotheses. Sometimes newly discovered empirical facts will totally overthrow a long accepted theory. It's happened over and over, that is what science is all about. What science can establish as empirical fact is very useful, but what is hypothesized/theorized is never absolutely certain.

Care for a scientific theory? Just ignore the artificial colors, flavors and assumptions.

Now, place that bowl of jello next to the rock solid Truth of the Word of God. Which One do you trust more?

Any attempt to accommodate our view of Scripture to the current prevailing theories will likely force us to adjust further and further as the theories get adjusted - and we could potentially have 

our views totally destroyed as further empirical data is discovered. We could waste our time writing large volumes attempting to accommodate eternal and infallible Scripture to whirling bits of hypothesis that only last 100 years or less! Often much less. I do not doubt that if scientists were given, by fiat, ALL of the pertinent facts, they would logically be forced to become literal 6 day creationists.

Who actually possesses all of the empirical facts regarding the origins of life and the universe? More to the point, who has ALL of the empirical facts that exist, period? The same One who also knows ALL of the history of our universe. When He gives an account of what He did, I think it wise to simply accept what He has said, and believe that he has the facts to back it up – whether we have uncovered those facts yet or not. This is the difference between science and revelation.

Really, the hubris of a puny man giving us very firm dates for this or that event in the remote past, millions and billions of years ago. It’s simply absurd for him to do it, but it might be even more absurd for us to take him seriously.

Isaiah 40 gives us some idea of what God thinks about such temporary and fading human pride.

6 A voice says, “Cry!”
And I said, “What shall I cry?”
All flesh is grass,
and all its beauty is like the flower of the field.
7 The grass withers, the flower fades
when the breath of the LORD blows on it;
surely the people are grass.
8 The grass withers, the flower fades,
but the word of our God will stand forever.

9 Get you up to a high mountain,
O Zion, herald of good news;
lift up your voice with strength,
O Jerusalem, herald of good news;
lift it up, fear not;
say to the cities of Judah,
“Behold your God!”
10 Behold, the Lord GOD comes with might,
and his arm rules for him;
behold, his reward is with him,
and his recompense before him.
11 He will tend his flock like a shepherd;
he will gather the lambs in his arms;
he will carry them in his bosom,
and gently lead those that are with young.

12 Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand
and marked off the heavens with a span,
enclosed the dust of the earth in a measure
and weighed the mountains in scales
and the hills in a balance?
13 Who has measured the Spirit of the LORD,
or what man shows him his counsel?
14 Whom did he consult,
and who made him understand?
Who taught him the path of justice,
and taught him knowledge,
and showed him the way of understanding?
15 Behold, the nations are like a drop from a bucket,
and are accounted as the dust on the scales;
behold, he takes up the coastlands like fine dust.
16 Lebanon would not suffice for fuel,
nor are its beasts enough for a burnt offering.
17 All the nations are as nothing before him,
they are accounted by him as less than nothing and emptiness.

A Leading Creationist will Speak at my Church

Dr. Gary Parker will speak at Lakeside Community Church on July 24, 2011. At 9:30am, he will teach an age-integrated Sunday School class covering the controversial phrase, "He descended into Hades" from the Apostles' Creed. He will speak on Biblical and scientific creation at the 10:45am service.

Dr. Parker has worked for both Answers In Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research. His testimony is included in the following video from the Institute for Creation Research, along with those of Drs. Thomas Kindell and Jobe Martin.

His Answers In Genesis bio can be read HERE. 

The Devolution of Theology

Editor's Note: The previous post was long, so I've broken it into two parts. This is part two.

I've noticed a trend among Christians who adopt the beliefs of evolutionists. They usually aren't solid on the doctrine of inerrancy in the first place. They have nagging doubts or a general sense of discomfort with the idea that the Bible is completely trustworthy in every possible way. Over time, they allow themselves to be deceived through the pseudo-science and propaganda presented by atheists and agnostics. Perhaps there is social pressure, and they don't want to look ridiculous. They may even say they are trying to remove any possible "scientific" hindrance to the Gospel.

Once evolution has been accepted, it becomes the unbreakable fulcrum under the logical lever that dislodges Biblical inerrancy from their minds once and for all. Rather than viewing Scripture as "incapable of being wrong," they come to see evolution as "incapable of being wrong." It's a tragic mistake and an example of misdirected faith. With inerrancy conveniently removed, they begin to view the Bible as a theologically authoritative book containing culturally influenced factual errors. They then live on the scraps of whatever theological truth they can squeeze out of a supposedly erroneous document, and stop engaging critically and Biblically with their own culture. The next step (or should I say slide) is a direct departure from clear Scriptural teachings and a willingness to apply all sorts of odd hermeneutics in a way that makes the Bible remarkably similar in its "spiritual" theological emphasis to their own culturally absorbed views. In this way, deceived souls take insolent authority over the Text rather than living under the authority of the Text (they then quickly point out how humble and flexible and teachable they are - and how arrogant those "rigid, orthodox, conservative" believers are for insisting on the utter veracity of the Word of God).

In time, they deny every core component of the Gospel and replace it with whatever philosophy is currently in style. That's a classic mark of liberalism. In the end, the term "Christian" becomes a mere descriptive shell, and it no longer characterizes their conduct or thought processes. Culturally derived ethics are then artificially "Christianized" and exalted above doctrinal Truth, and the fortress of indestructible unbelief is complete. Now to write books and make false disciples!

Not every Christian evolutionist follows this path all the way through, but I've seen it often enough to call it a definite trend. Have you seen it?

For further study, see this excellent article by James Anderson of RTS in Charlotte:

"I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution"

Click here for The Devolution of Theology, Part 2

Tomorrow I'll post two short videos by Dr. Joel Klenck.

Don't Be Duped By Evolutionists, or "The Slippery Slide Into Devolving Theological Liberalism"

For atheists and agnostics, evolution is a no brainer. They don't have the Book - the authoritative self-revelation of the Creator - to guide their thinking. The only viable choice for God-rejectors is to look backward and guess what might have happened in the prehistoric past. Dig up some rocks and try to piece it all together with limited intellect and and a tiny little slice of empirical evidence. Their driving positive presupposition is that they can figure it out, and their driving negative presupposition is that the Biblical account can't possibly be true and isn't even worth considering. They write it off as mere superstition.

It is odd to see Christians follow in lock step with the results of such godless thinking. It's shocking, in fact, to consider how many well-meaning believers are now accepting evolution as an unquestionable fact. We have the official story on cosmic and human origins. We have the Creator's Own Word on the matter. He includes specific details of His own actions in the God-breathed account of Genesis. There is no good reason to doubt His account, from a scientific standpoint or a Biblical one.

The Inerrant Bible: An Alternative to Evolutionary Assumptions

Every day for the past week, I have attended 2-3 hours of scholarly lectures given by Dr. Joel D. Klenk, a scientist from the Paleontological Research Corporation. Klenck, who holds an earned Ph.D from Harvard, teaches extensively on the scientific study of Biblical creation. His material is as deep in the study of Hebrew language and Biblical texts as it is in the study of rock layers, fossils and archeological evidence. He demonstrates how and why the Biblical texts, taken as actual fact, do not conflict with ANY scientific evidence. With insights derived from a career in the field and extensive firsthand study, he exposes multiple and specific instances in which contradictory evidence has been ignored by his evolutionary-minded colleagues. But Klenck is not just another player on the creationist bandwagon. He fearlessly takes fellow creationists to task when any aspect of their approach is either unbiblical or unscientific.

You can learn more about the Paleontological Research Corporation and Dr. Klenck's work by clicking here. (Incidentally, the video introduction/sales pitch was filmed at my church).

If there were actual conflicts between real science and the creation account, I could understand some Christians being tempted to seek an alternative. If evolution made logical and scientific sense, I could understand. But for any believer to deny a creation account that perfectly accords with all of the scientific evidence, and to replace it with something as rickety as evolution theory, is beyond comprehension. Recently, I made the following remark to a Christian evolutionist: even if I were to reject Biblical creation, I could not put evolution in its place because evolution is not scientifically tenable. It's a dead theory, from start to finish. On the other hand, at least theistic evolutionists can claim God made the impossible happen by miraculously intervening - but then why not just say God miraculously created the world in six days as He claims?

Despite the salient problems with their fairy tale, evolutionists throughout the world continue to prop up their theory and present it as factually true. The sheer force of their insistence should cause all thinking people to suspect something is amiss. The pure stubbornness with which they cling to it ought to give us a clue. They leave the impression that only a backwards, intellectually impaired buffoon would ever question their adorable theory. It's all somewhat reminiscent of a cat, which, when cornered, puffs itself up to look big and scary. All that raised fur, the hiss, and those flashing eyes can get you thinking you're in real danger. But in reality you're only facing a terrified little ball of fur. An evolutionist looking at the evidence is rather like a cat stuck up in a tree. He thinks he has the high, safe position, but in reality he was chased up there. Try to get him down, and you'll feel those claws.

Like cornered cats, atheistic evolutionists are scared to death by the obvious drift of the evidence. They're terrified by what the evidence suggests: that we were created by a morally superior God and are accountable to Him in every way. They quell these fears by getting the rest of us to validate and affirm their view (something the evidence can never do). They are more zealous in evangelizing for their secular cause than most Christians are for the cause of the Gospel. In the end, it's all bald conjecture and a denial of the blindingly clear Truth. Christian, don't be fooled!

Continued Here: The Devolution of Theology

For further study, see this excellent article by James Anderson:

"I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution"

Rationalism VS. Revelation

This is the latest installment in an ongoing conversation I'm having with a friend who turned from Christian faith to agnosticism. Rationalism seems to be a common factor in many "de-conversion" accounts, and it has become a dominant topic in our exchanges. My friend has embraced science and rationality as primary epistemic sources, excluding the possibility of divine revelation. A previous letter discussed the use and limits of science. Here I am addressing the use and limits of rationality - and our desperate need for divine revelation.

I think we agree on the empirical nature of the natural world, the real-ness and objectivity of "things." The question is, are there realities beyond this? Can we know them? How?

As a Christian theist, I say . . .

"Yes, there are realities beyond the empirical, even beyond the empirical things we don't know yet but can discover. There is a spiritual dimension that we all live in but rarely consider or define, which we cannot discover independent of divine revelation."

"Yes, we can know it, but not by scientific discovery or rationalistic pursuit. On the other hand, the realities of this spiritual dimension will not ultimately contradict scientific fact or rational logic. Indeed, the spiritual dimension undergirds them, determines them, defines them, and upholds them."

"We can (only!) know these realities through divine revelation."

Further, there was a time when our whole race knew these realities, but we have fallen into a state in which we can perceive only what is merely scientific and what is merely rational (and I would add that we can perceive spiritual realities of an evil or false nature, but not of the Truth).

The process you describe, that of courageously embracing reality and humbling oneself to accept what is revealed by rationality and the senses, is magnified when one walks in the light of divine revelation. Here realities are revealed which are a hundred times more humbling and a thousand times more challenging to one's native presuppositions.

In fact, the entire construct I have described is designed to humble us. But it goes beyond that. It is also designed to raise us to heights we could never reach by any other means. And it takes a special kind of courage called "faith" to receive these things.

This divine revelation comes through multiple streams:

GENERAL REVELATION

Scientifically: the created universe, even in its fallen state, shows a beauty, order and magnificence that points to God's power and grace.

SPECIAL REVELATION (Objective)

Historically: the unique Person of Jesus Christ revealed God's will in His words and works, and especially by His death and resurrection. (Christ's historic work can be classified as both general and special revelation, a bridge of sorts)

Textually: the amazing Bible with divine "fingerprints" all over it.

SPECIAL REVELATION (Subjective)

Dreams, visions, angelic visitations, etc. that have been given to some.

All of this is interpreted rationally by the mind of man.

It is interesting to see how these streams are woven together, the Bible itself containing visions and dreams and angelic visitations, and Christ experiencing angelic visits during His life. Genuine subjective revelations will point us back to Christ and the Bible. But Christ Himself and the Bible itself are the clearest and most objective revelatory sources.

Those who live and walk in these truths, and love them, won't trade them for anything. They are precious beyond every earthly treasure and they bring a joy that is beyond comprehension.

Such faith is not given to every person, and on the whole it is rejected by a self-reliant humanity. To those who possess it, it is incomprehensibly wonderful. It calls for the abandonment of rationalism, but not of rationality. For the Christian, seeing the rationalist's refusal to abandon his self-reliance gives evidence to the presupposition of Scripture, that man is in rebellion against his Creator. Seeing the rational framework of the rejection of God confirms the presupposition that man is created in God's image and retains the mark of it. But the "gift" of rationality is now turned against the One who gave it!

Apart from divine revelation, fallen man can never reason his way to the conclusion that

he is in rebellion against his Creator. Why? Because he is too fallen to be able to reason to this conclusion. He can't see what he is. So, according to divine revelation we are in quite a conundrum apart from divine revelation. Based on their respective presuppositions, Christians and rationalists cannot arrive at the same conclusions. It is impossible.

Can you feel the gigantic divide in our epistemic sources? We are each in a philosophically frustrating position. You believe there is no divine revelation because your rational faculties don't (won't/can't) ever lead you to it. You would like me to see what you see. I believe there is divine revelation because I have experienced it. But I cannot prove it to you in a rational way, I can only pray that you also may experience it and know as I know.

One final note: overall, I'd say the ball has moved forward. You are being honest and we are no longer playing games. You do not pretend to have experienced divine revelation, which leaves the possibility that you may yet experience it. If and when you do, your rationalistic presuppositions will be shed like a caterpillar's cocoon, and you will fly on the wings of a new and unshakable certainty. You will not (indeed, cannot) lose or deny your scientific and rational facts, only the presuppositions that lead you to interpret them in a rationalistic way. And you won't miss them.

I continue to pray for you, my friend.

The Philosophical Limits of Science

I wrote the following to a longtime friend who recently abandoned the Christian faith and turned to agnostic naturalism for answers (or should I say non-answers?).

When you say you "believe strongly" in the scientific method, are you acknowledging a certain kind of faith? A faith that only things which can be proven by the human senses matter? That the collective sense-knowledge of humanity serves as the final authority on what does and does not meaningfully exist, what is and is not significant?

Given all that I know of human beings - by my own observation and study, in addition to the findings of psychologists, anthropologists, historians, biologists, etc. - I would not trust that a race of beings who are so finite, limited and error-prone could hold the keys to everything. In order to do this, I would have to presuppose that the race (or at least its educated leadership) is correctly interpreting the cosmos, concerning both the things seen and the things unseen. Since the universe is so vast, and our window on it is so tiny, how can we place so much trust in our own perceptions?

The strength of this position is that things known are known with absolute certainty (e.g., that rock is a rock, made up of these elements, having these properties, and it always behaves in these ways, no matter what). The weakness is, larger questions are left unanswered - there are so very few things that can actually be known with "scientific" certainty. A true agnostic has to disbelieve so many things which would seem to be self-evident, simply because they are not scientifically warranted.

However, I do not believe anyone really lives by these principles. There is a presupposition that God either does not exist or has no interaction with the world. Hence, divine creation is not even entertained as a possibility, and evolution is assumed because it is the only possible way life could have arisen without divine action. And when the obvious question is asked, "Where did the original particles come from?" the answer is: "We don't address that question, it can't be known with any scientific certainty." And yet there is a certainty about the idea that there is (essentially) no God (at least no meaningful God), and He couldn't possibly have intervened in the universe in the distant past (let alone have created it). But I say, "What if there is such a Being, and He really did those things, and He is simply beyond the reach of human perception?" Although this cannot be known with scientific certainty, it is equally true that His non-existence and non-interaction cannot be known with scientific certainty. So, when it comes to the big questions (the ones not discernible by science), all of us are left to faith and presupposition.

Imagine, for a moment, that mankind had no sense of taste, touch, sight, smell, or hearing. Would everything that is now scientifically verifiable cease to exist or have meaning? Would everything be meaningless until observed? Even if we had no means of observing it? That would be absurd, like the old question about a tree falling in the woods! Yet this very assumption is made, that there is no meaningful God because we cannot observe Him scientifically.

I love science and agree with its observations as far as they go. But is it wise to conclude that there are no meaningful realities beyond the scientific facts? Are there scientifically valid reasons to assert this? I believe there are scientifically valid reasons not to assert it, and even to vehemently deny it. One observable, repeatable, and established fact proven by science is that there is much more in an unsearchable universe than science has ever discovered or ever can discover. As an epistemic source, I judge it to be highly reliable but far too limited. Like a very solid and well-built bridge that only goes a few inches across the chasm.