February 4, 2008
-
enrolling in God's school of maturity
I asked God (because circumstances revealed my astonishing immaturity and sin and inadequacy) to enroll me in the set of classes in His school of maturity that would advance me at maximum safe speed (the only danger is walking away from Him) to extreme intimacy with Him and maturity and wisdom and Christlikeness... to "wholeness" / 'telic-ness' / 'perfection' / 'complete-ness' referred to in Matt. 5:48, Phil. 3:15, Eph. 4:13, Heb. 5:14, and James 1:4. (...knowing of course that whatever wisdom or maturity He eventually gives me will still be only derivative and reflective of His glory and sufficiency, and I will still need to rely on Him in everything because "apart from Me you can do nothing" - Jesus in John 15).
I am happy to report that He has granted my request immediately. The classes are very difficult but are reputed to have very positive results.
Do I recommend these classes? I don't know yet... ask me again in a few years.
Do I recommend Him as a Teacher? Yes.
Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us,
fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.For consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.
You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood in your striving against sin;
and you have forgotten the exhortation which is addressed to you as sons,
"My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord,
Nor faint when you are reproved by Him;
For those whom the Lord loves He disciplines,
And He scourges every son whom He receives."It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.
Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness.
All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.
Therefore, strengthen the hands that are weak and the knees that are feeble, and make straight paths for your feet, so that the limb which is lame may not be put out of joint, but rather be healed. Hebrews 12:1-13
Comments (5)
Wow! An immediate response...that's great. Keep running with endurance and fixing your eyes on Jesus, and you'll be all set to ace those classes.
perhaps I should have added that an Almighty God not only can create a world with age, but he could certainly also do it within a matter of minutes, days or any other time frame. I was more referring to the evolutionists' confidence that they can decipher what has happened by looking at their so-called evidence of fossils and layers of dirt.
When it comes to Christ's death and resurrection, that is a little different anyway, because someone was there. I consider the witness of the early disciples, the gospel, Paul, and the early church to be substantial evidence as well as historical data. The literalness of Christ's death and resurrection is a salvation issue. I take heed of the warning that it may be a slippery slope to start writing off parts of the Bible as mere allegory, poetry, or mythology, but certainly some parts obviously are. but we must be careful not to just write off the parts we don't like as such.
First, I admire your courage for asking God to enroll you in such classes as mentioned above. Mt. 5:48. Telos. It is so hard to fathom, and yet this is what he wants for his children. Do you ever read William Barclay?
I don't think I said what my Christian peers' view are, did I? I suppose I was most surprised by the friend who never found any contradiction in most of the evolution being taught in public schools and the creation she believed in at church - an issue I have struggled to resolve for ages it seems. I am gradually coming to peace with it. Someday I will probably have a good answer for myself (God-willing) but who knows if it will make sense to anyone outside of my own head. It turns out that everyone in my small group believed that the tower of Babel was the best explanation for the languages of the world and that the flood certainly did happen although there was some disagreement over whether it was a regional flood (civilization would not have been so widely spread and thus would have still been wiped out except Noah, et al.), or a planet covering flood. I am in favor of planet-wide as an explanation for the crazy fossil record and earth layers. There was no crazy-dinosaur- killing-comet in my opinion.
Since you have been thoughtful and honest in your questions, I will be honest in my answers. I am a work in progress. I am not saying that I am where I should be. I am saying where I am. I think I fall into that unfortunate group of people that CSLewis mentions when he talks about miracles. (I think it was Lewis.) Many modern Christians believe God could do miracles but do not seem to think that he would. I believe God can do these things I read in the Bible, but sometimes I don't believe he would. (I need to go back and see what else Lewis said about that to put it into context.) Obviously this puts me up to the problem that you brought up as a question. "Someone besides God?" If I believe God can do these things and in the Bible he tells us he did in fact do them, then what excuse is there to not believe him? Well, then we get to the issue of the inspiration of Scripture. (Another topic I think I could listen to believers argue for years without ever feeling 100% convinced either way.) The point is, I have always believed that God really did these things that the Bible says he did. But some days I feel as though I believe them in my heart, yet my mind won't accept them. Does that make sense? I'm not really sure how to explain it, but sometimes it is just embarrassing to admit that I believe such things when my head doesn't want to accept them. When you start to grow up you start to realize how preposterous certain Sunday school stories sound when they come out of your mouth. I suppose this is yet another sinful manifestation of intellectual pride. So I am trying to sort the issues that I get hung up on. Answers are so hard to come by. Especially less than pat ones, which are all I seem to get from church. I doubt. I question. Sometimes those more confident in their faith judge. Thanks for not judging! Your sincerity is evident.
I cannot pretend to understand ancient lit enough to know whether the early parts of Genesis were meant to be taken literally. I guess it is easy to be swayed by friends in divinity school and even CSLewis who claim that the creation story was fashioned after other creation mythologies. Have you not heard this? I suppose a few conversations with Catholics on their view of Scripture also begs me to question my more literal/Protestant view of scripture as well.
May I then ask, if you hold to a Young Earth model? Do you not consider it valid to think that in the six days of creation God created not only a man and a woman with age, but also an earth with age? Also, did I really say something that made me come off as an Old Earth/Evolution supporter? Perhaps I was ambiguous. In the words of Francis Crick, I really believe that "[w]hat is clear is that most of the experimental evidence so far presented falls short of proof in almost all cases" in regards to macroevolution, life coming from non-life, and any ideas of something coming from nothing. The "proof" we have is far from good science - because anything that goes beyond the microevolution of flies, dog breeds, and peppered moths is all based on poor observation and extrapolations of fragmented data. It is not experimental science. It can't be reproduced.
Hi Steph,
Nice quote from Francis Crick, and I fully agree with the thoughts you shared on evolution being not supported by evidence.
You're right, I wrongly guessed at the percentages of your christian friends who were sharing old-earth/young-earth views, and what their views were on Babel and the flood, and I may have misunderstood your own current beliefs on the subject too. I'm sorry for presuming too much.
Honestly though, I hope you never feel at peace reconciling the theory of evolution with the Bible. From what I have seen so far, they are completely irreconcilable. But more on that later.
>> sometimes it is just embarrassing to admit that I believe such things when my head doesn't want to accept them. When you start to grow up you start to realize how preposterous certain Sunday school stories sound when they come out of your mouth.
Yes, I know what you mean. Especially in the university. I am definitely continuing to struggle with this myself - the need for more boldness, to share and not be embarrassed about the things I believe. As Jesus said, "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels." Luke 9:26
>> Answers are so hard to come by. Especially less than pat ones, which are all I seem to get from church. I doubt. I question.
I went through a similar time, from which I am now emerging. I do think it is a stage all people go through (indeed the human frontal cortex is not fully developed until around age 21
. My closest friend throughout grammar school and high school (now a physics phd student at MIT and still a close friend) is an old-earth creationist, so I have discussed many of these facets with him before. My dad is a young-earth creationist and I have had the benefit of discussing some of these topics with him and some other wise and knowledgable (PhD) young-earth creationists, so that is where I received some of my training. However, not brainwashing, I hope, and think... 
I do believe these things now because I personally see good reason to believe, not just because I grew up believing them.
If you are interested in reading articles on the web about these issues, three great sites are: Creationontheweb.com, Answersingenesis.org (recently subdivided from the same original parent group), and Trueorigin.org (more technical). If you're interested, I could mention the hardest-hitting evolutionist sites too for comparison, but I'm sure you're already aware of them or can find them easily. Also, one more site with great overall fascinating reading for questions about the Bible is Christian-thinktank.com (see the index... !)
>>May I then ask, if you hold to a Young Earth model?
Yes.
I personally think it is the more rational of the two main theories, when ALL the evidence is considered, including the Bible and the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If I were to limit myself to just a small subset of evidence, say only looking at radiodating and cosmological chronometers, the old-earth view might look more rational, but if I look at ALL the data, the young-earth view seems the most rational.
>> I cannot pretend to understand ancient lit enough to know whether the early parts of Genesis were meant to be taken literally.
Again, with all due respect and I do not mean to offend you, but that unfortunately sounds like a cop-out. Would you claim to understand ancient literature well enough to know whether Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were meant to be taken literally? How about 1 Chronicles? How about 1 Samuel, or Judges, or the latter 40 chapters of Genesis? Most people think that these other sections were indeed meant to be taken literally, but I will wait for your reply before presuming upon your beliefs one way or the other.
But if the genre of these other sections can be ascertained, then surely this objection does not have any force.
>> I guess it is easy to be swayed by friends in divinity school and even CSLewis who claim that the creation story was fashioned after other creation mythologies.
I know what you mean... I've read CSLewis' thoughts on it too, in Mere Christianity, etc. It seems to me that if "science" (uniformitarian / Big Bang cosmology / old earth / evolution) did not make the claims it does, then Christians would not be coming to this interpretation from the Bible. I've had people argue otherwise with me, but I still don't see any way one could read the Bible carefully by itself and come to the conclusion that the earth was created in anything other than six literal days. The "mythological" or "literary framework" or "poetical" or "six aeons" type theories only seem to come upon comparison with evolutionary theory. Even historically this is evident - these interpretations never arose before Darwin. The only non-literal interpretations of the days in Genesis 1 came from Clement of Alexandria and Origen who were heavily influenced by pagan philosophy and liked to allegorize almost everything, and from Augustine... and even their interpretations were not long ages but that the earth was created in an instant rather than in six days. And Augustine later recanted his view and came back to a literal interpretation. I could share more about that, but that's probably off the topic of interest.
Two closing thoughts. The three strongest pieces of "old-earth" evidence, in my understanding, are (1) the apparently millions-of-years-old radiodating results, like uranium dated rocks or argon dated rocks, etc... (2) the apparent "annual layers" of various types, like tree rings, ice lamina, prehistoric lakebed varves, coral reefs, etc, and (3) the question of how the starlight from stars millions of light years away reached our earth in only a few thousand years.
You asked, "Do you not consider it valid to think that in the six days of creation God created not only a man and a woman with age, but also an earth with age?" Yes, I do think that's reasonable, but there exist other explanations of these three areas that don't require much special 'created-with-age' pleading, if any.
On (1), the R.A.T.E. project (http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/rate) has been demonstrating some surprising scientific results suggesting possible accelerated radioactive decay in the past, meaning that the rocks could be only 6000 years old but have experienced "millions of years' worth" of radioactive decay.
On (2), each one of these I've seen has had some problems with it. The coral reefs turn out to be only 'true coral growth' a little ways down, then below that, a hodgepodge of calcium minerals without true coral structure. The ice layers that are supposedly correlated to temperature and atmospheric composition events like ancient volcanic eruptions turn out to easily be able to correlate to other dates, showing that the correlations are not so strong after all, implying that many meters of centimeter 'annual ice layers' could be laid down in a single snowstorm. The lake varves effect can also be generated with moving water like the floodwaters.
On (3), there are some creationist models now more than 10 years mature which suggest that the earth may be near the center of the universe, implying the possibility of huge relativistic time dilations, meaning that as God "stretched out the heavens" (Is 45:12, 51:13, Jer 10:12, 51:15) light from distant stars could have been traveling to the earth for millions of years by 'their time', while time on earth would have been just a single day. I'm always open to new suggestions, but this explanation satisfies me personally, because it seems to fit well with the Bible and also the scientific data (and even explains some that the Big Bang model has problems with, like the recent Pioneer anomaly).
The final closing thought, on inerrancy... I know how difficult it is to believe it, and I have struggled and still struggle with various 'contradictions'. But so many of the apparent contradictions have been cleared up for me that now I have much more 'skepticism of the skeptics'... and I have come to seek to emulate the view of Jesus Christ on the inerrancy of God's Word... E.g. John 10, "the Scripture cannot be broken", Matt. 4 "man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God," Prov. 30:5-6, "Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar. " Matt. 5:17-19, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke [jot or tittle] shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." 2 Tim. 3:16-17, etc.
In John 10:34, Jesus based his whole defense on the one word "gods" written in Ps. 82. In Matt. 22:29ff, Jesus based his whole argument on the present tense of the word "am" in Exodus 3:6. In Matt. 22:41-46, Jesus based his whole argument on the word "Lord" in Ps. 110:1.
I share these scriptures not to say "The Bible claims to be inerrant, therefore it's inerrant" (which would be circular reasoning).... but instead, in a sort of 'spiral reasoning' - if the Bible is a collection of reasonably accurate (though not necessarily inerrant) historical documents, then we can come to know who Jesus the historical figure was (and is). If He really rose from the dead, then he's likely not just a historical man, but was Who He claimed to be... the Son of God. If He truly was (is) the eternal Son of God, the Creator of the universe, then whatever He says is probably pretty important. And when I look at His recorded attitude toward the scriptures written by that time, He seems to have considered them inerrant. Then I notice that He predicted that more scriptures would be written after His departure by His disciples (e.g. John 14:26, 15:26-27, 16:12-15, etc). Then I notice that certain writings were accepted almost immediately by those who knew Jesus as being "scripture" (2 Pet. 3:16, 1 Tim. 5:18 quoting Luke 10:7), and furthermore that "scripture" is described as being "God-breathed" (lit. 'God-exhaled', 2 Tim. 3:16, similar to what Jesus said about the "words proceeding from the mouth of God"). So I arrive at inerrancy, not immediately, but through a roundabout route.
Thanks for your thoughts... take your time in response... I hope these thoughts in reply were helpful. Let me know if you encounter specific questions related to creation that I might be able to help you research.
My old pastor used to talk about how God is a gentleman who does not force Himself on us. But the second we ask to go further, He will take us at our word. There have been several times in my life when I have asked God to show me what really resided in my heart. Those times are excruciating, especially when He reveals things for what they truly are- even if we have convinced ourselves otherwise.
I have never seen anyone walk away from times like these and lessons like these with anything more than pure blessing. Even the "scars" we carry from these times shine like the sun.
Your post has stirred a jealousy in my heart. It's a good jealousy- I promise. It challenges me to remember where I have been and where I want to return to.
Thank you for living with such an open and humble heart, Tim.
Comments are closed.