I’ve noticed similar connections with TE/EC and YEC. Despite vast difference in material origins, both seem to have a mindset that puts God far and away from being involved in death, pain or suffering — which is not the God that I see in the Bible.
OEC, I’ve noticed, are interesting because they have a theodicy that’s more consistent with the Bible. They don’t shy away from saying that God is running the show — the good and the bad.
-Tim
I am reminded of Moses saying to Israel, this day, I have set before you good and evil, life and death, therefore choose life, (good), that your days will be long in the land that your God has provided for you. The choice was for Israel, the options were placed there by God and spoken by Moses.
It is difficult for me to comprehend misunderstanding of such clear and obvious statements.
Jim
Why do I sense some bait and switch going on here? The issue in the thread is the central theological question of the sovereignty and providence of God, and in your reply to Eddie you implied that there was some issue with Scripture’s culturally conditioned description of that. You used the “F” word in that context (“Fundamentalism”), and as a philosopher must surely be aware of Alvin Plantinga’s ironic critique of the common rhetorical use of that word (“Son’v’bitch Fundie” = someone who is more conservative than me) to foreclose rational discussion. (A bit like “white male evangelical” really.)
Now you’re going all moralistic on me and saying “Surely you don’t believe slavery in the Bible has anything to do with God?” And that despite the fact that I had attempted in my post to get you to move away from emotive proof-texts and define the parameters by which the Bible’s core theological teaching can be relativised as “culturally conditoned” and still constitute an “evangelical” view. I still await that explanation, free of the rhetoric.
Broadening my reply, and giving my own view, I think the quest to release the Bible’s teaching from its cultural context is a gnosticising practice (to use N T Wright’s scathing terminology), seeking to distil “eternal truths” from the clutter of history. But as Wright so ably points out, the Bible seldom presents “timeless truths”, but God’s self revelation in history, and therefore only in and through culture. Just as we only find him through our culture - but, significantly, also as he stands over against our culture in judgement of it.
To see “Jesus, Lord and God”, therefore, as somehow separable from the first century Jew, is gnostic, by denying the reality and goodness of creation (in that, as Mazrocon points out, TEs and Creationists are identical), and God’s gracious interaction with it as it is.
To fail to see (or to deny, rather) that in Scripture “men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Spirit” - the Spirit necessarily speaking in terms of their culture if he was to communicate at all - is unevangelical. It falsely tries to dissect apart “the word of God” and “the word of man” .And that goes doubly, of course, for the attitude that takes the “men spoke from God” claim as a culturally conditioned error.
This actually goes to the heart of the sovereignty and providence issues, for the classical doctrine of Providence, running right through the Church’s Patristic, Scholastic and Reformation theologies, is that God is constantly active in and through the events of human and natural history anyway, directing it to his ends, so how much more in the case of his own Scriptural Revelation through the Spirit of prophecy?
I can only suppose that you brought up “Fundamentalism” and “cultural conditioning” because you agree the Bible teaches such a view, but that you disagree with it - otherwise why raise the matter in this context at all? I say that God’s sovereign providence is not only one of those issues on which Scripture does teach timeless truth - it is also the very fabric of what the Bible is, for the Bible only teaches God’s self revelation through human history and the Spirit of the prophets.
Take away the human, and all that is left is what you yourself impose on the text.
Can’t we always say that about any past event? Whether it was caused by natural causes or was an act of God? Don’t we study past events to understand what the causes were and then create a predictive model to predict or give the probabilities of future events? Or perhaps learn enough from prior events to prevent or minimize the impact a future event might have?
Relax. I don’t believe for a minute that God rains down asteroids upon us. But if he did, then trying to deflect them really would be fighting against God.
Hey Beagle.
The reason why I ask is that it feels like to me that you are arbitrarily relegating the “good events” (from your perspective) to God, and the “bad events” (from your perspective) to random chance.
Does God create lightning? (Job 36:32). Or just the lightning that’s pretty to see and not the kind that causes forest fires or threatens communities? Does God create snow? (Job 37:6). Or just the snow that is appropriate for sledding and building snowmen, but not the kind that can turn into blizzards or avalanches?
How could it be that we are “fighting against God” when God doesn’t personally tell you everything that He’s doing in the world? It would be “fighting against God” only if He told you something He was doing, or wanted you to do, and you tried to avoid it (like Jonah fleeing to Tarshish). God is not off the hook, in any case, by deeming a meteor strike to random chance, when God surely could have prevented it.
When you view everything as in God’s hands it will change your view of nature, and the world in general. You will see the Creation as God sees it… Very good.
I invite you to see things from this perspective, as a friend, because it has certainly changed my view … And for the better. Not trying to beat anyone down.
-Tim
Jim,
I promise not to take offense when you say that Molinism seems like a “clever trick,” or that it’s “too contrived.” If that’s how it seems to you, then what else can you do but say so? Fair enough. And with that, you should indeed seek another alternative (transcendental idealism being one of many).
However, I do hope that you will recognize that you are reporting your subjective reactions to the rest of us, and not supplying us with an argument that Molinism is false. To do the latter, I think a demonstration of inconsistency is required. The literature on this topic is now quite extensive, but I think it’s safe to say that there is no such demonstration in any of it. Would you agree there, or do you take it that someone has exposed an internal inconsistency that follows deductively from premises Molinists must accept?
But if there is no such demonstration, then it is somewhat misleading to characterize the relationship between our two distinct discourses as “simply not meshing together.” That sounds like a claim of inconsistency, but that hasn’t been shown. So it looks like those who don’t share your subjective reactions are free to continue on their merry way. They will note your subjective discomfort, but also note their own lack of subjective discomfort. How can subjective responses such as these be adjudicated in the absence of an overwhelming argument? And it is even less clear (to me) how the addition of evolutionary biology to one’s belief set is supposed to require a change to one’s view of Providence. Why shouldn’t everyone just stick with what they’ve got (regarding God’s Providence) after learning that God created through an evolutionary process?
Well, the conversation was good while it lasted. Now it has degenerated to where the responses will have to be, “no, I didn’t say that, I said this” and “yes, I did answer that when I said this” and “calling me a gnostic is a massive misconstrual of this obvious point” etc. Experience suggests that we’re unlikely to make any more progress in this mode.
It’s reasonable to conclude that God IS finished with biological evolution in the Darwinian sense. In Teilhardian terms, the Noosphere has now taken precedence over the Biosphere as far a human evolution is concerned. Modern medicine (a product of the Noosphere) has allowed some genetic diseases to proliferate by extending the life of those possessing maladaptive genes to reproductive age. ‘Cleaning up’ the human gene pool may now depend on scientific advances, such as CRISPRs (another Noospheric product), as dangerous as that may be. Perhaps we will make Noospheric contact with an advanced civilization on another planet (one who has profited more from God’s grace), and learn from them how humans can
improve our race.
Al Leo
It will be a sad day when no new adaptations are possible. I think that as long as we live in a changing world we will need evoluionary adaptations. Mountain High: Genetic Adaptation for High Altitudes Identified
It would be an act of self-defense (and very wise) if we tried to deflect an asteroid God sent our way.
When asked why God would design everything and then destroy it with asteroids, Michael Behe replied that maybe not everything is designed.
So God creates lightning directly, like Thor? And snowstorms? What about storms at sea?
What I’m saying is that God’s “direct” action and “indirect” action is an unbiblical dichotomy. We tend to thing in these terms today, but that isn’t how the Hebrew authors depict God.
God is running the show (read Ecclesiastes 3, 1st Samuel 2, Isaiah 45:7). He provides for the carnivores (read the theophany in Job 38-41 and Psalm 104). He provides food and shelter for the birds (Matthew 6:26). He is responsible for weather and the hydrological cycle (again… In the book of Job).
He is not like Thor or Zeus in the sense that he only controls one aspect of a natural phenomenon. He is in control of all things.
It is difficult for us to fit that concept into our limited human brains, but I’m not sure what other conclusion you can come too, when reading the Bible.
Augustine wrote, “To you nothing at all is evil, not only to you but to your creation at large, because there is nothing outside to break in and upset the order you have imposed on it. But in parts of it some things do not harmonise with other parts, and are considered evil for that reason. But with other parts they do harmonise and are good, good in themselves… Let it be far from me to say: “These things should not be”, for if these were the only things I could see, I should still long for the better, and should be bound to praise you for these alone. [But when I understood from Scripture the praise arising from all things both in earth and heaven] I did not now long for better things because I considered everything.”
Here he is acknowledging that there is not other force in the world outside of God. But that it is no for him to say what should and should not be. He is not in that position, and considers what it means for all things in Creation to be worthy of praise.
In another place he writes, “But it is ridiculous to condemn the faults of beasts and trees, and other such mortal and mutable things as are void of intelligence, sensation, or life, even though these faults should destroy their corruptible nature; for these creatures received, at their Creator’s will, an existence fitting them, by passing away and giving place to others, to secure that lowest form of beauty, the beauty of seasons, which in its own place is a requisite part of this world. For things earthly were neither to be made equal to things heavenly, nor were they, though inferior, to be quite omitted from the universe. Since, then, in those situations where such things are appropriate, some perish to make way for others that are born in their room, and the less succumb to the greater, and the things that are overcome are transformed into the quality of those that have the mastery, this is the appointed order of things transitory. >>>Of this order the beauty does not strike us, because by our mortal frailty we are so involved in a part of it, that we cannot perceive the whole, in which these fragments that offend us are harmonized with the most accurate fitness and beauty. <<<And therefore, where we are not so well able to perceive the wisdom of the Creator, we are very properly enjoined to believe it, lest in the vanity of human rashness we presume to find any fault with the work of so great an Artificer… Therefore it is not with respect to our convenience or discomfort, but with respect to their own nature, that the creatures are glorifying to their Artificer.”
(Emphasis mine. Difficult to italicize on phone.)
Note that he says the reason why we, at times, see disharmony, is because we are only involved in one part if it, and it’s impossible for us to perceive the whole (like God does). Were we to look at the world from a telescopic viewpoint (rather than from a microscope), I think we could see more a symphony like orchestra of God’s works.
The problem is that a few of my friends speculate that perhaps insects, like spiders, were apart of the Genesis Curse. Others still have said that mutations caused diverse creatures like porcupines to come into existence, after “the Fall”. Why you might ask? It’s because porcupines have needles which are only used for self-defense, and since they cause pain, they would not be quote-unquote “good” in God’s “Original Creation.”
I see similar things happening with TE/EC groups but under a different lens. Instead of saying the unpleasant things of the world are part of a curse, they say, “Those things were accidental,” “That was due to random chance,” etc., etc.,
But I see nothing in Scripture that says that God has a “partial grip” on the Universe, that His universe stopped being, “very good”, or that He is caught off-guard by some natural phenomenon (when paradoxically He is apart of that phenomenon).
It seems to me that people are uncomfortable with this view of God, and so we tend to thing of God in a different fashion; partly because of atheist objections to God’s goodness, when referring to tragic events that take place… And the typical Christian response seems to be, “That was because of the Curse!” Or “That was just nature … God had nothing to do with that.”
But when a Christian says, “I don’t know what the reasons are for this, but I know that my thoughts are not like His thoughts, nor are my ways like His ways (Isaiah). I’m not in a position to say what God and cannot do in this instance.” … The person gets ridiculed or scoffed at. And I think because of this societal pressure, and fear of ridicule, it morphs and changes our view of God. In any case, the theodicy issues still stand for a Christians. If God did not create all things, sustain all things, deem it all very good, and without him there wouldn’t be anything made that was made, then who are we putting out trust in? A God the steps in every now and then when it’s convenient? A God where the vast majority of His creation is tainted because of a Curse? A God that gets caught off guard by a meteor strike? How is it that God is powerful enough to create the entire universe with all it’s physical constants and vast complexes … Yet a meteor falling to the earth was an “accident”…?
I try my best to see God as the authors did … And not to make a God in the image of myself, based on my personal preferences.
Have a great weekend.
-Tim
[quote=“jstump, post:50, topic:3475”]
Experience suggests that we’re unlikely to make any more progress in this mode.
[/quote]@jstump
Perhaps I have delayed too long to ask you this, but what do you (and other well read contributors to this Forum) think of Philip Hefner’s development of Created Co-creator in his book, “The Human Factor”? In spots his scheme seems to be in agreement with @Relates Roger’s view of evolution: “Human beings are God’s created co-creators whose purpose is to be the agency, acting in freedom, to birth the future that is most wholesome for the nature that has birthed us.” In other passages he seems closer to Teilhard’s views: "Homo sapiens is a two-natured creature, a symbiosis of genes and culture"–i.e., a creature in both the biosphere and noosphere. In other passages, he seems almost to hold to pantheism. Is the fact that his book won the Templeton Book Prize a recommendation or a discouragement to the folks at BioLogos?
Al Leo
Dear Beagle.
I have not read a single thing by Michael Behe, and so I don’t know see how he is relevant to this discussion. I know very little about the ID position and tend not to get involved in those discussions.
Wha I am asking is what YOU think. Not what anyone else thinks. I still fail to see your correlation with “fighting against God” when deflecting a meteor strike because it’s self-defense.
It someone dies (for whatever reason), do you say that God murdered that person, and God should be put on trial for the offense? That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. But I do acknowledge that Scripture created life that would be subject to death. He gave Adam a choice to choose eternal life, or be exiled from the garden. He chose the latter. It really doesn’t matter the HOW of when a person dies, nor does it follow that a person that would chose to eat more salads, work out, etc., is “fighting against God” because God subjects him to an eventual death, and I’m “really just prolonging the inevitable.”
-Tim
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.