The Time for Truth
December 14th, 2006
(By John MacArthur)
The following is adapted from John’s upcoming book, The Truth War (Nelson: Spring 2007).
This is by no means the first time the Truth War has intruded into the church. It has happened in every major era of church history. Battles over the truth were raging inside the Christian community even in apostolic times, when the church was just beginning. In fact, the record of Scripture indicates that false teachers in the church immediately became a significant and widespread problem wherever the gospel went. Virtually all the major epistles in the New Testament address the problem in one way or another. The apostle Paul was constantly engaged in battle against the lies of “false apostles [and] deceitful workers [who transformed] themselves into apostles of Christ”
(2 Corinthians 11:13). Paul said that was to be expected. It is, after all, one of the favorite strategies of the evil one: “No wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness” (vv. 14–15).
It takes a willful naïveté to deny that such a thing could happen in our time. As a matter of fact, it is happening on a massive scale. Now is not a good time for Christians to flirt with the spirit of the age. We cannot afford to be apathetic about the truth God has put in our trust. It is our duty to guard, proclaim, and pass that truth on to the next generation (1 Timothy 6:20–21). We who love Christ and believe the truth embodied in His teaching must awaken to the reality of the battle that is raging all around us. We must do our part in the ages-old Truth War. We are under a sacred obligation to join the battle and contend for the faith.
In one narrow respect, the driving idea behind the Emerging Church movement is correct: The current climate of postmodernism does represent a wonderful window of opportunity for the church of Jesus Christ. The arrogant rationalism that dominated the modern era is already in its death throes. Most of the world is caught up in disillusionment and confusion. People are unsure about virtually everything and do not know where to turn for truth. However, the absolute worst strategy for ministering the gospel in a climate like this is for Christians to imitate the uncertainty or echo the cynicism of the postmodern perspective—and in effect drag the Bible and the gospel into it. Instead, we need to affirm against the spirit of the age that God has spoken with the utmost clarity, authority, and finality through His Son (Hebrews 1:1–2). And we have the infallible record of that message in Scripture (2 Peter 1:19–21).
Amen.
So, the elephant sitting behind John MacArthur as he’s writing this is the question of over-reach, of leaning on one’s understanding at the expense of the truth.
For example, in MacArthur’s post here on Sep 18, “How Important is Genesis 1-3″ (can’t provide links here, apparently, sorry), MacArthur takes a stand for a young earth alongside Ken Ham and ICR (Kent Hovind doesn’t get mentioned anymore, I suppose). He has “clarity” about the truth of Genesis and how important his mystical interpretations for the Christian, as he nonchalantly dismisses the whole of science.
So, to my mind, MacArthur, and his like-minded leaders at AiG and ICR, have found clarity where it doesn’t belong, in the *timeline* and *science* offered by Genesis 1-3. Theologically, Genesis does provide a clear, compelling narrative for God as creator and man as fallen and in need of salvation. But because MacArthur values clarity and certainty above all else, it gets put above else, including the truth.
MacArthur dishonors the Creator with this kind of man-made clarity, and mocks the witness of God’s general relevation to man — the world He created for us. I’m surrounded in my work by technical and scientific types who read words like MacArthur’s as they consider the case for Christ, and see Christianity as perfectly arrogant and dishonest; MacArthur’s post on Genesis came to my attention in just this way — an unbelieving friend who’s a scientist was bewildered by the hubris and ignorance in that post.
MacArthur’s “clarity” in cases like this becomes a stumbling block, a case *against* the Gospel, and it’s tragic to see. If this all what Christianity has to offer as a witness to its commitment to absolute, ultimate truth, then it’s no wonder we’re sliding into the Christian era.
My comments here are not meant to open up the YEC issue here, but offered as a concrete example of what I see as over-reach, of “clarity” becoming the agent of falsehood. So, without trying to resolve the YEC controversy here, I’m asking John MacArthur (or anyone) else:
How does one know when one’s clarity is merely the product of your flesh, your pride, your carnal nature? Do we appeal to confirmation of the Holy Spirit for our certainty? If so, how do we address those who claim the same for a different conclusion? Draw swords? And at what point does the available external evidence get a foot in the door?
Should Galileo have been put to death after all?
Really, this sounds very much like a firewall against criticism and a means of demonizing “non-MacArthur” views. The most troubling aspect here is the complete absence of the “other” side; where did MacArthur mess up regarding his clarity, and how did he detect and fix the problem. Has it happened? It seems he would have to become that which criticizes — doubtful, skeptical — in the process of fixing whatever clarity errors he’s made over the years, if any.
-Touchstone
I am glad that the message does not change and neither does our God, He is the same yesterday today and forever. For if we had to operate differently because of the changing times to “appease” our God, that would be a truly frightening thing.
Keep fighting for THE truth Dr. MacArthur, that never changes.
Nothing is clearer than 2 Timothy 3:16-4:2. If I ever want to hear “Well done, good and faithful servant” I will have to preach the word–just as it is clearly revealed, and without compromise. I must strive prayerfully and by God’s grace to keep it from being tainted by my culture.
Name-calling and inuendo such as “the elephant sitting behind John MacArthur” from people who hide behind clever blog nicknames is part of the problem, not in the least helpful to the cause of serving Christ as He builds His church. People swept along with the current of postmodernism need to be confronted by propositional expository proclamation of the truth of Scripture, whether those people are within the church or outside.
Clarity absolutely belongs where it is to be found! Either the universe was created in six days and God’s word is true, or it was not and the Bible is not true. How much clearer can it be?
You said: “Instead, we need to affirm against the spirit of the age that God has spoken with the utmost clarity, authority, and finality through His Son (Hebrews 1:1–2). And we have the infallible record of that message in Scripture (2 Peter 1:19–21).”
Very well put. Keep pointing us to the Word of God!
Many Christians have placed great importance on Gen. 1-3. Many times it is telling about how one views the rest of the Bible.
It could be said that you are “nonchalantly” dismissing God’s word in favor of “the whole of science.”
RickB,
I pleace great importance on Gen 1-3. It’s foundational, the bedrock of my understanding of scripture. It is here we are given absolute, over-arching truths that provide context and a rationale for the whole rest of the Bible; God is the only God, and the sovereign, omnipotent creator of the universe; God created man in the imago dei; man transgressed God’s law, was banished from Eden; as a result mankind is fallen, sinful, and in need of grace and salvation from God’s wrath.
Those are foundational, essential truths. Circling the day October 23, 4004 BC as “the day”, is manifestly *not*. And that’s the problem with the over-reach in clarity. They get offered as similarly *essential*. The trivial and gets mixed in with the essential, all for the sake of “utmost clarity”.
It’s precisely because I *don’t* take Genesis 1-3 lightly that I *object* to propositions like MacArthur’s propositions that war against the evidence of God’s creation, and undermine the credibility and confidence in the absolute truth that *is* imparted in Genesis (God is sovereign creator, the fall of man, the need for salvation, etc.) If I didn’t think Genesis was crucially important, I wouldn’t object to MacArthur’s conflation of falsehoods scientific views with the sine qua non theological truths that we *can* and should defend at all costs.
-Touchstone
Touchstone,
In John’s book “The Battle for the Beginning,” he was merely applying a consistent hermeneutic unbiased by scientific speculation. His interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is accurate if one agrees with the hermeneutical principles applied.
John was also reminding believers that if they apply a different hermeneutic to Genesis 1-3, then they had better know that their hermeneutical flexibility can be used to undermine just about every other biblical doctrine. And lo and behold, that’s just what’s happening within evangelicalism today!
Now, if you don’t believe the Genesis account of creation is accurate, say so to your friends. But please, let’s not have any claims that it really doesn’t teach what it plainly does!
Another thing, I’ve heard some pretty smart scientists say they have no trouble with a literal interpretation of Genesis. They apply the term “hubris” to those who claim evolutionary theory has been proven. By the way, one was a man in my congregation who was a physicist who worked for Lockheed Corporation and then taught physicas at the college level. One of the smartest guys I ever met! He believes Genesis 1-3 and scoffs at evolution.
Frankly, I don’t mind if the world thinks my interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is incorrect. After all, most non-believers believe the Gospel is foolish. I trust the Lord to use His Word to bring those He has called to salvation. I just proclaim it as it is.
Touchstone,
Can you make a few observations about the meaning of 2 Timothy 3:16-17?
2 Timothy 3:16-17 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
Instead of ad hominem attacks on John MacArthur, and absurd suggestions like “killing Galileo” which the Roman Church which also said that Scripture can’t easily be understood by the common man because it was not sufficiently clear, deal with God’s word. What does God’s word say about itself in 2 Tim. 3:16-17?
As you think through the meaning of these verses, consider this. God communicated His will in writing through the Scriptures. Now to suggest that God lacked the ability and the competency to communicate in an understandable way with those whom He created seems to take a dim view of God’s intellect. He wrote through men to communicate His will to those whose thinking had already been tainted by sin and its effects. Are you suggesting He lacks sufficient competency to clearly communicate?
To say that all men and women lack the ability to sufficiently grasp what God endeavored to communicate to them makes God out to be an incompetent who is ill-equipped to deal with the problems of His creation and who failed to anticipate, despite His omniscience, the complexities of future cultures.
As you read 2 Timothy 3;16-17, again… notice the “so that” clause… As you read your Bible you will notice a lot of “so that” clauses.
When you read a verse like 1 John 1:9, “if we confess our sin He is faithful and just to forgive us our sin and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness…”
Here you have an “if…then…” propositional statement. It would appear that God has chosen to communicate in His word, which abides forever (1 Peter 1:25), in propositional truth statements.
In fact, Christ, Himself, is guilty of this “offense” against postmodernism:” “If you love me you will keep my commandments (John 14:15). There’s another “if…then…” propositional truth.
The “story” is this… God describes Himself as a/the God of order not confusion… and it appears He’s insisting that His truth can be clearly understood so that no one is without excuse. Therefore, He holds “sinners” accountable as well as “teachers (James 3:1).”
You can pretend otherwise… you can engage is attacks on the “messengers” whomever they are… but that’s the message.
God wrote to be understood… He wrote (in both Old and New Testaments) in propositional truth statements which took a variety of forms (beyond “if…then’s…” and “so that’s.” But Scripture is loaded with them as well. All attempts to pretend otherwise are simply attempts to pretend.
Look again at the word of God:
2 Timothy 3:16-17 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
God’s word is described as profitable for… every (not most, or some) good work(s). Since it is profitable for teaching (doctrine), for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness… it must be so that we are able to understand it with some degree of clarity and precision otherwise, we could not be “adequate” “equipped” for “every good work.”
Yes, some concepts are harder to grasp and explain than others… but God provides for us through His Spirit which gives us illumination—
1 Corinthians 2:14-16 14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. 16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.
May God bless you, Touchstone, as you submit to Him and serve Him in accordance with His will, expressed with clarity in His inspired word.
Keith Crosby
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Steven Lamm,
I agree; The Battle for the Beginning *does* represent the natural application of MacArthur’s hermeneutic. That’s precisely the problem! Look what that hermeneutic produces, a retreat into mysticism and a denial of the plain witness of God’s creation. The very starlight John MacArthur sees from his back porch at night rebukes his hermeneutic. The wonder of God’s creation is cast as an illusion, a pre-packaged history of a star or supernova that *never* was.
And it is true that the hermeneutical flexibility John warns against can be and *is* used against the truth of scripture. Where there are degrees of freedom, man will abuse it, sinfully. But that is a very, very poor basis for dismissing a hermeneutic that harmonizes scripture with God’s creation. By that measure, we’d best not let the common man even *read* the Bible, as it might then be abused, should we give everybody the flexibility of reading and discerning for themselves.
Just so we’re clear, I believe Genesis, as written, is 100% accurate, 100% true. It just isn’t even trying to impart what MacArthur supposes it is. MacArthur is mistaken about what claims Genesis is making and what claims it’s *not* making. It’s a declaration of theological imperatives, core truths that hinge not in the *least* on the length of a solar day or a billion years. The Fall, the introduction of death through Adam, God’s sole sovereignty over all creation… all that is affirmed in a clear and compelling way. But vapor canopies, dinosaurs on the ark, and a 6,000 year timeline are manifestly *not* clear, in light of the witness of God’s creation.
As for smart scientists, I have “smart scientists” with lots of PhDs that routinely engage me about the archaeological truth of the Book of Mormon. If you know anything about *that* particular issue — Mormon archaeology — you will understand my failure to be impressed with a PhD attached to an apologetic. It’s a basic polemic defense for just these kinds of hermeneutics. But let’s not kid ourselves — the vast and overwhelming testimony of science affirms an old earth, and ancient universe. To pretend otherwise is to mislead your readers. They may *all* be wrong. That I freely grant. But MacArthur’s “propositional” hermeneutic has led him — necessarily to a point where he must repudiate science, categorically.
I realize that’s not a problem for you. You’ll apparently defend your interpretation (and MacArthur’s) in the face of *any* and *all* evidence from God’s creation. That’s your prerogative. But let’s not pretend that this doesn’t have a dramatic impact on the unbelieving world. As I said, I have colleagues and friends who work in physics and astronomy, and they get interested, motivated, and earnestly open to hearing the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Then a Google search turns up links to John MacArthur who informs them that they must reject their knowledge and wonder at the universe God created, in order to please that same God, to be a “real” Christian.
They’re unbelievers, but they’re not stupid. They know what to make of a hermeneutic that says that all of science is “just a hypothesis”, even as the proponents of that hermeneutic gets on a jumbo jet to travel the world in advocating it. They read comments like Jim Harris’ above, and understand that Christianity *does* demand this proposition:
Clearly, if YEC interpretations are false, the Bible and Christianity are false.
So they take him at his word — Christianity is clearly, obviously false. And they languish in unbelief, careening towards God’s eternal wrath as a result. And just to add insult to injury, the YECs blame *him* for taking them at the word.
-Touchstone
Hi Keith,
Thanks for the comments. Very thoughtful and well grounded. I affirm — enthusiastically — that the Bible is replete with propositional truths. I affirm and endorse all the propositions you cite in your comment here. When Jesus says “if… then…” I take that for what it is — a conditional proposition.
And I unreservedly affirm 2 Tim 3:16-17: All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
I don’t think we disagree on that proposition at all.
My objections get launched when I see *this* verse used as a justification for propositional claims I can’t find in scripture, like the proposition that Genesis is a scientific account of creation. That’s an imported, modernist corruption of the text, in my view. A “propositional falsehood” that anchors the whole of MacArthur’s view on Genesis.
And it isn’t just about YEC/Genesis. That’s the obvious, stark example that jumps to mind. I absolutely assert that all a believer (and the church) needs to teach, reprove, correct and train is in there, and in there fully and clearly, so that we may be adequately equipped to fulfill God’s plan for our lives. I do *not* take that to mean that many mysteries/ambiguities that inhere in the Gospel message (predestination/freewill, the imago dei, the precise mechanism and timing of sanctification, etc) are manifestly clear. “Face value” just doesn’t yield a solid grasp of the truth in many cases. In many cases it does, and therein lies the challenge.
I don’t deny propositional truths in the Bible, or the plain “face value” reading of many parts of the text. But I don’t superimpose a preset level of clarity that must be met by the Bible, beyond what we need to repent, believe, be saved, and go on to fulfill our role and responsibilities as workers for the Kingdom of God. I agree, if we can’t get *that* much out of it, the Bible isn’t much good. I affirm that we can.
But I lament the commitment to leverage *that* certainty as currency and blessing for one’s own speculative/historical interpretations. And that’s what I see in John MacArthur’s teaching: the attempt to justify his own determinations in area where things aren’t essential or of “utmost clarity” by conflating them with the things that *are*.
Thank you for your wise and kind words, Keith. May God bless you abundantly!
-Touchstone
Touchstone,
Regarding people with PHD’s, I agree with you! That’s my point exactly! I’m not impressed merely because one side throws the majority scientific opinion into the mix even if some of them are Christians! And, I am happy to admit that my view of Genesis certainly goes against the grain of modern scientific opinion. Of course, if we hold on for a while, I’m sure my view of the Bible’s teaching on some other issue will soon be declared “unscientific” as well because one thing about scientists – they sure do change their minds a lot!
Look, it would be easy and a lot less trouble to take a old-earth view of Genesis 1-2, or to believe in theistic evolution. I wouldn’t have smart guys like you telling me what a dunce I am. But I really believe a proper interpretation demands the view that Genesis 1-2 teaches a literal six day creation. I also don’t begin with general revelation to determine how to interpret the Word of God. Looking at general reveltion to determine spiritual truth is like watching the TV without the sound on – kind of hard to get the story right! But, we’re a bit off target here.
The issue you raised was that John is not using a proper hermeneutic, so his views about the “truth war” are suspect. Perhaps Nathan will do a blog on the subject of proper hermeneutics some time and you can point out where we’re mistaken in our practice.
I notice you have a blog yourself. I’ll do some reading there to better understand your views.
Please forgive my harsh tone in my previous comment. I know John and attended Grace for 4 years as a young Christian. I admire him and he serves as a model for me in my own ministry. I’m a little touchy when I feel that John’s integrity as a Bible interpreter is being questioned.
Blessings,
Steve Lamm
Touchstone -
On what authority do you postulate that natural revelation should supercede a straight-forward interpretation of the biblical text?
In fact, when you state that MacArthur retreats “into mysticism and [denies] the plain witness of creation”, whose “plain witness” are you referring to? Yours? The scientists you read? Perhaps you’re the definitive word on the “plain witness of creation”. Just exactly which human interpretation of the creation’s evidence should we believe? You chide MacArthur for what you deem a merely human (and naive) interpretation of scripture, then turn around and demand that the rest of us accept human interpretations of scientific data as authoritative.
If you’re going to strike with such condescension, you must equally demonstrate why that which is “obvious” to you in natural revelation should be authoritatively obvious to the rest of us (and I do mean “authoritatively”).
Keith: “Instead of ad hominem attacks on John MacArthur, and absurd suggestions like “killing Galileo” which the Roman Church which also said that Scripture can’t easily be understood by the common man because it was not sufficiently clear, deal with God’s word. What does God’s word say about itself in 2 Tim. 3:16-17?”
Instead of the absurd suggestion that Scripture (with, as interpreted by me, an implied ‘all’) can be be easily interpreted by anyone, and the indirect ad hominem attacks on all Catholics, deal with the issue at hand.
Rhetoric will get you nowhere.
Sincerely in Christ,
Hidden One.
PS: I’d be happy to debate the in/absurdity of the assertion, but preferably some place on topic.
Touchstone,
If you apply the same principles to interpreting 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and John 14:15, then the words mean what they say.
When you read Genesis, in Hebrew or English, the words mean what they say… Yom, the Hebrew word for day, with very few exceptions means a literal 24 hour day. Even the context before the creation of the light bearer called the sun the “days” yomim are described as evening… morning… a first day… Moses, the human mechanism for the “writing” of Genesis, writing in Exodus of the Sabbath Law for the Jews writes,
Exodus 20:11 11 “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
A consistent hermeneutic, the same one you apply to the passages you affirm, must be applied here to the Hebrew narrative. Genesis, with its vav consecutives (and God said… and God said…) is the language of historical narrative—you can’t allegorize it without doing violence to the text.
Once you allegorize Genesis 1-3, then you allegorize Christ’s atonement. If Adam and Eve are allegorical, then there is no original sin… no original sin… no need for a Savior.
Also, Christ interpreted the Genesis account literally. Addressing the Pharisees on divorce and marriage, Jesus said this:
Matthew 19:3-6 3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5 and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH ‘? 6 “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
Jesus is quoting Genesis as historical fact–the creation account of Adam and Eve. Speaking elsewhere of the veracity of the Old Testament, as much as He affirms it here, Jesus said, in John 10 the word of God cannot be broken (it is not erroneous).
Now, let’s consider who Jesus is. He’s God in the flesh, the Author of Scripture. He clearly indicates Adam and Eve are real, He relies on the Genesis account of the institution of the first marriage to make His case to the Pharisees (knowing full well we’d be reading it today–God is omniscient):
“Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5 and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH ‘?
As far as scientific evidence goes, spend some time at answersingenesis.org. Even an Ivy league professor describes “evolution” as on obscure religious belief created by dead white men…” As far as scientific evidence goes you might want to broaden your horizons about the class between geologists, astrophycists, and biologists…
John MacArthur’s hermeneutic is consistent… you used the same hermeneutic as he when you affirmed 1 Tim. 3; John 14:15… If he is retreating into mysticism, then so have you as you have employed the same hermeneutic as he. You cannot have one hermeneutic for OT and another for NT.
While we recognize genres and figures of speech, you have to take a natural reading of the text. Genesis speaks of a literal 6 day creation. The idea may not be popular in some quarters. You may be persecuted for it—but they persecuted Him, too. Moreover, Jesus’ comments in Matthew affirm it.
Matthew 19:3-6 3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5 and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH ‘? 6 “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
Keith Crosby
Green Bay Wisconsin
PS thanks for the timely response and gracious reply. It’s good to interact in a civil, Christian manner.
Touchstone and the rest,
To reinforce something Keith said above about original sin, allegorizing Genesis 1-3 makes Romans 5:12 not mean what it says. If there was death in the world before Adam, that major doctrine is destroyed and what Paul wrote is built on a foundation of sand.
This interesting discussion is a good illustration of the serious consequences of rejecting certainty and time-tested hermeneutics. The gospel actually is at stake in these issues!
God is indeed capable of clarity, and made Himself clear in His precious word. Our task is to proclaim it carefully, thoroughly and objectively by His grace and power.
I agree a series on hermeneutics is a good idea.
Jim
Boise, Idaho
Steve,
I think we share a healthy skepticism of PhDs-as-authoritative-just-because-they-are-PhDs. Where I think we depart is in the idea that science is just sort of a random number generator, flailing back and forth from one idea to a completely different one capriciously. If that were the case, I think its epistemology would not be valuable.
But that’s not how science works. Science is always tentative, and science evolves with the development of paradigms and theories that are increasingly more powerful in terms of explanatory power, congruency with observations, and predictive success. While science does change it’s “best bet” routinely, it’s anything but will-o-the-wisp, which seems to be the impression John MacArthur, and perhaps you, would like to give it.
Science has affirmed that the earth goes around the sun for 500 years now, since Copernicus and Galileo produced the evidence and predictions that even the church realized would require rethinking some of their interpretations (they held that the earth was the fixed center of the universe, and attached theological significance to it).
Anyway, I’ll spare you the scientific treatise, but know that science is *not* like the weather here in Minnesota — just wait for a short while and it will completely change. The earth orbiting the sun is completely settled by nowl; I’d wager that John MacArthur would even agree to this, although if you asked me on what basis he did so, I couldn’t tell you. But it does violence to the history and epistemology of science to suggest it simply thrashes randomly hither and yon, and is inherentlt completely untrustworthy. As I said above, I’d be surprised to learn that John MacArthur doesn’t drive a car or ride on airplanes. If he does, he’s proving that science is trustworthy on *some* level.
Like you, I don’t start with God’s creation and work backward. I start with a clear, face value reading of the Bible, like I think you do. But I don’t *end* there. If I read in Isaiah 55 that the trees will clap their hands, I don’t simply decide that “face value” — that trees actually, literally do or will have hands — is sufficient. Based on my knowledge of the external world, I know that trees *don’t* actually have hands, and that suggests that the prophet Isaiah is using a bit of personification there to get a beautiful, poetic truth across.
So, just like I (and you I presume; do you suppose Isaiah is promoting the idea of trees with hands? If not, why?) am informed by the trees around me to do justice to the message contained in God’s Word, I’m informed by the rocks in the garden next to the tree, and the stars that shine at night above them. All of these bear witness to ancient age of the earth, of God’s ordaining of physical laws and orderly processes that worked toward His good ends over billions of years. When I read ‘yom’, I think ’solar day’ at first, just like you do. But just like I know that trees don’t have hands, I know that rocks are clocks, and bear witness to the millions and even billions of years that have passed since their formation. I gaze in wonder at the starlight, and know that they COULD NOT BE THERE, AS THEY ARE according to the simple “face value” reading that John MacArthur demands.
Because I believe Genesis *is* true — absolutely, unreservedly true — just like the book of Isaiah, I am informed by God’s creation. I give “face value” its due, it’s place at the head of the line. But I don’t let it war against the facts. God’s revelation through nature is as perfectly and absolutely true as his special revelation, the Bible. Truth does not conflict with truth.
As for tone, no apologies necessary, and know that I seek only earnest, truth-seeking, generous exchange with you and everyone else. I don’t pull punches (as far as I know), but I aim to treat you like I’d want to be treated. You’ve done more than that, and for that I thank you.
-Touchstone
Jerry Wragg,
Thanks for your questions. Let me see if I can provide the distinctions you seek.
First, I won’t repeat everything here that I said to Steve Lamm above. I refer to my response to him with respect to “clapping trees”, Isaiah, and being informed by the external world.
When we interpret a text, we are so attuned to the processes of applying external knowledge and contextual information, that sometimes we hardly notice. Without fail, when I bring up “clapping trees” from Isaiah, my interlocutor will say “Sure, that’s personification, or some kind of figurative speech”. And I agree that it is — beautiful poetic speech pointing to a profound truth!
But then I ask how they *identify* it that way, and inevitably, the confess to resorting to EXTERNAL KNOWLEDGE! I ask them to show me where we learn of the morphology of trees if we are *only* using scripture for our knowledge of scripture. Inevitably, they admit they can’t, and simply point to their knowledge of God’s creation — trees! Beautiful trees!
Then, I ask them how they could justify putting their external knowledge on top of the literal meaning of Isaiah. By what authority can you do that? I ask. Usually, they just laugh, and tell me not to be silly or pedantic.
And well they should. We bring our cultural, linguistic, and scientific knowledge to bear in interpreting any text; these are tools we rely on to derive meaning, and to resolve logical tensions.
With regard to mysticism, I suggest that the “scientific view”, while it may be wrong, is precisely the opposite of the mystical view. A mystical view is one that sees the existential reality as *invisible* to the senses, facts, and reason. I submit that the scientific witness is *exactly* that, a consensus of the sensory, factual and reasoned investigation of God’s creation. The science-compatible view may be wrong, ultimately — God *could* have created a deceptive “mature creation”, complete with fantastic supernovae that dazzle our eyes, but alas, never really existed — but this view is the *opposite* of a mystical interpretation. The science-compatible view says that the natural world *is* real and visible and measurable in significant ways.
I’m sorry, but I don’t know what your “demand” there at the end of your message means. I’ve read it through several times, and don’t think I can respond in a meaningful way without some more help from you as to what you mean.
Lastly, as to “authoritatively”, I don’t suppose the that science *is* transcendantly authoritative; Science is fundamentally a tentative epistemology. It never pronounces a proposition to be absolute truth. It doesn’t even understand the *idea* of absolute truth. Rather, it presents paradigms and descriptions, along with varying levels of expressed/observed confidence in them. Newton didn’t get it quite right with respect to space, time and gravity. Einstein came along and provided a better model. Even now, the Einstein model is giving way to better models of space/time/gravity. But that kind of change and update doesn’t change the fact that gravity holds you to the earth; you’re accelerating downward every moment of your life, whether you believe Newton, Einstein, or Feynman, or MacArthur.
Science doesn’t provide the last word on anything, then. It’s always possible an even *better*, simpler, more accurate paradigm will replace the current champ. But that’s not warrant for us to pretend gravity is “just a hypothesis”. And truly, to a large extent, that’s what John MacArthur is asking. That’s what his hermeneutic has produced.
-Touchstone
Hi Keith,
Thanks for the continued discussion. I’ll give this a good go, but will try to keep it concise, as I’m “over quota” again in terms of word count in this thread.
1. Words mean what they say. Hmmm. Please read the “Isaiah/trees/hands” section in my earlier comments. Words mean precisely what they are *intended* to mean. No more, no less. It’s not at all safe to say that the obvious or literal interpretation is a deterministic route to the intended meaning. Isaiah uses personification, a type of expression that expressly says something quite distinct from “what it says”, assuming you mean the obvious, most literal interpretation.
I’m sure you are aware of Hugh Ross and the various forms of day-age interpretive frameworks. I won’t rehash that here, except to say that I find the only way the hyper-literal interpretation can be arrived at (in light of our other knowledge), is if it *must* be, by rule.
2. Consistent hermeneutic/Hebrews. If Genesis 1-3 is expressed as allegory, it in no way implies that original sin isn’t real, historical, binding, in every way that it would be if it weren’t related through allegory. Adam *did* sin, and the transgression caused the Fall of mankind. Allegory is a form of symbolism; it doesn’t deny or alter the reality of that which is symbolized. In the case of Genesis, the law, the transgression, the consequences were all PERFECTLY, ABSOLUTELY real, but related to us allegorically, at least in part.
This does justice to the theology, then. The sin was perfectly real, and so was the Fall and its consequences. Mankind is subject to God’s wrath just as fully with an ancient universe as he is with a six-solar-day setup.
3. Adam/Eve are real. I have zero problem with this, and, being married for nearly twenty years now, rejoice in God’s design through a real Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve I hold to be completely perfectly real. Their story is told in a mixture of theological, mythological, and factual/historical language. None of those deny the reality of Adam or Eve.
4. Same hermeneutic. This section I disagree with, completely. I do affirm again what I affirmed above, but see MacArthur going *way* beyond the warrant of those propositions. *Way* beyond it. He has extended the natural hermeneutic and stretched it far beyond what’s warranted in the service of what is apparently his superintending axiom: clarity. Not just clarity on the core, the essentials. But clarity as a rule, as the necessary conclusion, across the board. Nothing in the Bible supports that axiom that I can find, and I believe many parts deny it — Paul’s “through a glass darkly”, for example.
MacArthur and I both affirm the passages, but I completely reject the liberties I believe he takes seeing that as an imperative for certainty and “utmost clarity” as a *given*. The hermeneutic I see being endorsed is that scripture is perfectly authoritative and sufficient for its intended purposes, purposes ordained by God. That’s not guarantee for clarity throughout, but only clarity with respect to what God intended to be clear. Some things He purposely couched in mystery. Some things are beyond are ken. Some things aren’t *good* to know with clarity. Some things are *essential* to know with utmost clarity.
5. Scientific Evidence. I understand what you’re saying, and believe me, I’d love to engage this, in depth and at length. I’m certainly willing to in some other venue. But I’ll have let our disagreements stand here, else we go *way* off topic, much further than we are just now. Suffice it to say right now, science is a “propositional statement”, to frame things like Phil Johnson likes:
Science: The earth is billions of years old. The universe is much older than the earth.
With respect to both of those, they are either true or they aren’t. It’s a binary disposition. Christians at this point have to address the proposition. Either science is completely, fantastically, categorically wrong and fraudulent, or its witness to creation must be addressed interpretively. There’s no middle ground left.
Oops, kid time, then dinner! More later.
I’m enjoying and benefitting from your comments, thanks.
-Touchstone
Touchstone,
I believe you are making a quantum leap between making our present-day observations of gravity on the same level as the THEORY of evolution which projects far, far back in time before (supposedly) human record-taking was even possible.
As to the young-earth view, there’s no deception or incongruity in God creating the universe aged -it’s just an over-the-top show of God’s ability that we’re seeing. If God wanted to create aged wine out of thin air He could do it, and without present-day human explanations available to us. Hey, there’s a thought! -God can actually preserve mysteries in His own creation! In that circumstance I would say I am all the more dependent on His written word to make sense of it all.
But I’m not sure everything about the young-earth view is necessarily per se a mystery. Take Abraham, for instance (Genesis 15:5, 22:17). Here we have a man who was able to look up into the heavens and see stars without having to wait a billion years for the light of distant suns to reach his pupil. Likewise, Abraham didn’t have to wait millions of years for rock to turn into sand. Under the old-earth view we have to wait nearly forever just to see starlight. Not cool, man.
My wife is calling me for supper so I’ll have to limit my words to that. Let me know what you think…
Peace out.
-Jon S.
When those who study special revelation come to a conclusion different from those who study general revelation, which conclusion gets modified to bring about harmony? If the history of science – the history of those who study general revelation – was devoid of revolutions (such as described in Kuhn, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”)where one way of understanding replaced another, with the new way differing significantly from the old, I would be more receptive to those who wish to modify conclusions from the study of special revelation. However, such is not the case.
When it comes to the study of special revelation, specifically, in this case, Genesis 1, I cannot get past the phrase “And there was evening and there was morning, the —— day.” If the ultimate Author of special revelation wanted us to understand the creative process as taking place over an extended period of time, then why did He inspire Moses to use a phrase that leads to the conclusion that the creative process took place over a very short period of time, specifically, six days? There would be much stronger support from special revelation for an old earth and an extended period for the creative process if this phrase was “And there was the —— day (i.e. period of time).” However, that is not how Genesis 1 was composed.
In the end, when push-comes-to-shove, based on the evidence, I am compelled to go with special revelation over general revelation.
As a followup to my previous post, here is one of the things that I think about while running in the morning: One day after Adam was created how old was he? On a chronological level he was one day old. However, given that he was created as a mature male, on a biological level he was, say, 20 to 30 years old, or whatever age you want to pick for the representative mature male. This same argument can be applied to rocks, trees, or any other part of creation.
Applying the same argument to Jesus’ first miracle – turning the water into wine – how old was the wine five minutes after Jesus created it? On a chronological level it was five minutes old. However, on a biological level it was, say, six to nine months old, or whatever age you want to pick for representative mature wine. Were a modern scientist, with all the tools of his trade, to examine this wine five minutes after Jesus created it, the modern scientist would conclude that the wine was much older than the elapsed five minutes. And the modern scientist, though incorrect in his conclusion, would have correctly performed accepted scientific procedures.
Keith Crosby,
I think the only part I didn’t address in your message before I headed off for kid time and dinner was this:
While we recognize genres and figures of speech, you have to take a natural reading of the text. Genesis speaks of a literal 6 day creation. The idea may not be popular in some quarters. You may be persecuted for it—but they persecuted Him, too. Moreover, Jesus’ comments in Matthew affirm it.
Let me not that I think it’s important that you used the word “natural” there. You’re right, clapping hands on trees reads naturally as personification, because of our *natural* understandings, our knowledge of the *natural* world. It is this same *natural* reading I’m advocating for in Genesis: informed by our natural world.
As for whether Genesis “speaks of a literal 6 day creation”, I suggest that’s simply begging the question. A literal interpretation is a *conclusion*, not a presupposed requirement in reading the text. By your standard Isaiah “speaks of literal hands on trees”. Can you see the problem in this approach to a text?
I’m trying *not* get bogged down in the specifics of the creation debate, but rather to focus on the epistemology that produced it, as I see *that* as a the fundamental problem MacArthur has working against him on this issue. Obviously, you can see it’s not hard to tempt me into a discussion on the scientific particulars.
Thanks for batting this around with me.
-Touchstone
Jon S,
I was about to say science understands gravity a lot better than it understands evolution. I think that’s true in a significant sense, but at the same time, I think the basic mechanics of gravity are going to remain a mystery to science quite a while after the mechanisms at work in biology and genetics have become basically settled out. That’s neither here nor there I realize, but it’s an interesting question all the same.
I do understand you to be pointing at the idea that we can trivially (think Newton’s apple) experiment and interact with gravity, and understand it in a practical sense in a way we just can’t with evolution. That is definitely true, if that’s what you’re driving at here. An inherent problem in studying very slow processes is that, well, they are very slow processes. That’s problematic for science, which is predicated on an observational/iterative heuristic.
As for “stone-washed, pre-aged” creation, I affirm that our God is plenty powerful enough to create a universe that looks and acts precisely as if it’s billions of years old — measured and analyzed along myriad different lines of investigaton — even though *really* it is just 6,000 some years old.
It could be. With an omnipotent God, *any* conceived scenario is plausible.
But there’s a difference underneath that separates this out from the water-to-wine miracle at Cana, or the miraculous healings, or the Resurrection. Where as those clearly point to God’s power and glory, ancient supernovae exploding in the night sky that tell us the story of a star that never really was… that’s more deceptive than anything else.
As an unbelieving/seeking astronomer friend says, “things like that almost make you think there must be a God”. He’s incredulous when he hears from YEC Christians that SN1987 — a supernova that he’s published papers on in scholarly journals — never happened. Why? Because it *couldn’t* have, as science says it happened 170,000 years ago. It’s just an *illusion* that God created for him, something pretty to inspire awe at what he *didn’t* create, but rather which He is awesome enough to fool him into thinking he did!
When Jesus healed a blind person, right in front of the crowd, they were seeing first hand the power of God. When archaeologists document a mighty dinosaur from millions of years ago, they’re just sadly mistaken. When an astronomer looks at a star hundreds of thousands of light years away, he’s not really seeing evidence of that star hundreds of thousands of years ago, he’s seeing the illusion of such. I understand some Christians think this is all to God’s glory, and even take satisfaction in God “getting one over” on those uppity scientists.
I see this as craven theology at best. God’s general revelation is a lie, in this view.
With respect to Abraham and stars, I guess I’m confused. The old earth model holds that the stars and earth were created billions of years before Abraham arrived on the scene. He didn’t have to wait at all. It’s a testament to the wonder and glory of God’s creation that Abraham was born into a universe prepared and developed over billions of years, just as a backdrop for the greatest story ever told, the story of God and man.
I guess that would be a simple matter of preference, but I find that to be exceedingly cool.
Thanks for the comments!
-Touchstone
farmboy,
I’ve burned up more time here than I should have today already (and more than many would like to see, I’m sure), but let me sign off for the evening with a comment on this:
If the ultimate Author of special revelation wanted us to understand the creative process as taking place over an extended period of time, then why did He inspire Moses to use a phrase that leads to the conclusion that the creative process took place over a very short period of time, specifically, six days?
First, I get nervous right off the bat in situations that are “God would…” or “God wouldn’t…”. That presumes a level of understanding we just won’t and can’t have in this lifetime.
Second, despite my cautions above, I’d say that God was not at *all* concerned about indicating *anything* about the time spans, but rather a) that He is the Creator and Author and more importantly (here) b) that a “work six, rest one” pattern be established as an example for mankind.
That is, if God wishes to impress on man the importance of the sabbath, the creation story cast in sabbath terms seems a fine way to do it. Relate creation in the six “days”, the six phases of creation, along with a sabbath, a period of rest. It’s not important or obligatory that God made everything in “solar days” — the sun, the defining, requisite anchor for a “solar day” didn’t even *exist* on the first day. What’s important is that a work-six, rest-one example be imparted to man for his well being.
So, I’d point at the creation story being related in “days” as an important mnemonic device for Adam & Eve, and all who came after, a typing technique that provided powerful theological weight to the sabbath structure. Mankind *does* operate on solar days as a basic unit, so “days” seems to me to be an effective figurative tool for God to use in demonstrating this. I don’t find in this *any* rationale for God to suppose He’s bound to the limitations of a solar day(s) in creating His handiwork.
That’s my speculation, anyway. I don’t pretend to know with certainty what God *would* or *wouldn’t* do in hypothetical cases.
-Touchstone
Dr. Macarthur,
You state the following in your book: “The apostle Paul was constantly engaged in battle against the lies of “false apostles [and] deceitful workers [who transformed] themselves into apostles of Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:13). Paul said that was to be expected. It is, after all, one of the favorite strategies of the evil one: “No wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness” (vv. 14–15).
Who are some examples of Satan’s ministers transformed into ministers of righteousness? It certainly would include people who pose as Christian leaders, but are really dedicated to UN agenda 21. This would include people like B Graham, R Warren, A Mohler and M Dever. All Southern Baptists and all dedicated to the UN agenda. The apostle Paul battled against these deceitful workers. It’s a real disgrace that you invite some of them in your pulpit.
Touchstone,
Your begging the question. When you read Genesis as it’s written it simply says the earth was created in six days.
When Darwin later jump started his own faith based religion, which is now recognized in evolutionary circles as a philosphy, evolution as an apriori understanding was retro-fitted into the text and to accomodate both views was read into the text (i.e. eisegesis).
What it all comes down to, Touchstone, is reading into or reading from the text of Scripture. Prior to the birth of the evolutionary model and its popularization there were essentially two views of the text of Scripture. One view held it was a collection of fanciful tales, semi-historical events, and a few moral dogmas. The other held it to be the word of God (ala 2 Tim. 3:16-17).
Evolution provided a replacement for God. True adherents to that faith hold that there is no place for God in their equation because they characteristically reject supernaturalism (i.e. creation, miracles, resurrection, etc…). That’s why people like Sam Harris have no interest in theological liberals who believe the Bible is a book that contains God’s truth, some parts being more inspired than others as Harris rightly contends they’ve already surrendered their faith and haven’t come to terms with their own unbelief.
When a person finds themselve seeking terms for surrender to secularism and gradual unbelief some seek to accomodate both and find ways to convince themselves its okay while.
The reinterpretation of the text to allow for notions like day-age, etc… works for some. But even unbelieving liberal theologians (i.e. the so-called dead Germans) who interacted thoroughly with the Hebrew text admit it says what it says, literal six days. They don’t believe it–they are secular in their approach—but they have enough integrity to admit the text says what it says.
There are a sufficient number of scientists who accept the Bible as truthful, I’ve met all kinds, a man doing research on the mechanics of DNA (Phd Post-doctoral scholar at Cal Tech now working in China); editor, author, instructor at one of the finest medical schools in the country; JPL-ers… These guys look at the same “scientific evidence” as the theistic evolutionists” and true evolutionists and the data speaks to them differently.
Now, Touchstone, heres your problem. As finite human beings living a fishbowl existence (i.e. like gold fish in a fishbowl we experience our own little world and think we understand the universe based on our experience) we can either interpret our world through the lens of experience or through the lens of Scripture. We can put our faith in man’s abilities or in God.
The former convinces us that sin is really a sickness, that homosexuality is a lifestyle not a sin against God, that its okay to divorce for almost any old reason, etc. The later lays down a black and white picture of our existence, origin, and purpose while call upon us to live lives in harmony with the Creator’s will by taking the first step of soul surrender to Him recognizing that Jesus Christ died for our sins, we, as sinners need the Savior (there’s only one Savior, one way to God and that’s through Christ (John 14:6; Acts 4:12, et al.) and that He rose again from the grave (1 Cor. 15) and our eternal life with Him is undeniably linked to understanding, believing in, and surrending to who He is, what He’s done, and that we need Him (i.e. our relationship to Him).
When we read from the text, that God created the heavens and the earth in six days and we read you shall not murder and we read of the resurrection we understand that the text of Scripture is speaking clearly. Retro-fitting our own notions and ignoring the lanuage, with its truth statements, propositions, and lexical syntactical relationships is our way of elevating ourselves to God-hood (as Eve attempted) so that we can live as we prefer.
It takes more religious faith to believe that we evolved and that the omnipotent God had to work through trial and error to bring us into existence after an ex-nihlo creation of matter, time, space… than to believe in a competent, clearly communicating single God who loved the world so much that He sent His Son to die for sinners.
When we read in Exodus 20… You shall not murder… and apply allegory or fuzzy logic we can read into it, “except on friday” since friday isn’t stipulated… we can choose to ignore the different words used for killing and murder and the context but then we are simply playing postmodern games.
Touchstone, the text says that it was all done in six days. The narrative describes sequencing, features of 24 hour days, etc… The same human instrument of inscripturation later uses the same word for days and refers back to days and ties in the day connection with a practice like the Sabbath (we discussed this in my last post); Jesus Christ, God in the Flesh, attests to the veracity of the Genesis record in His discussion of marriage and divorce.
For 18 centuries Jewish commentators, Christian commentators, etc… interacting with the Hebrew text read from it that way. Don’t read into it what is not there.
By the way, given your allegorical eisegesis of Genesis 1-3, how do you read the resurrection account? Was it a literal resurrection, a spiritual one, a metaphorical one…just what?
And in John 10 when Jesus says “I am the door,” and claims to be the exclusive path way to heaven,and in John 14:6 when He by using “the” states He’s the only way of salvation… do you take that literally or not. When John writes in 1 John 1:9 that eternal life is dependent on one’s relationship with Christ… do you take that literally or not?
Grace to you,
Keith Crosby
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Touchstone,
After reading the numerous responses you have given to various comments over the past several days, it is ‘clear’ that you have started your interpretive process with the notion that God cannot be known or understood with certainty.
You wrote, “I get nervous right off the bat in situations that are “God would…” or “God wouldn’t…”. That presumes a level of understanding we just won’t and can’t have in this lifetime.”
We can know what “God Would or Would not” do, because God has Acturately, Certainly, Absolutely, Authoritatively, and Finally revealed Himself in His Word, both written (the Holy Scriptures) and Living (Jesus Christ).
We know for certain that God cannot go against His nature and character and because He is the God of order and not confusion, we can and do know what He ‘Would’ or ‘Would not’ do.
The very creation, as well as how it came about are a reflection of His nature and character and that is why He did it that way. He simply couldn’t go against Himself.
If you would just believe God as He has defined Himself, the other confusions would begin to be clear.
You know full well that if we begin with the wrong god (by our own definition) we can only end up with futile speculations (Rom. 1:18-30).
Just for the record-
Galileo was not killed by the Roman Catholic Church. He was put on trial for heresy in 1633 and died in his home nearly ten years later in 1642.
Great post, Pastor MacArthur. I am looking forward to the release of the book. I hope that there is also a chapter in it which discusses the biblical command for our speech to be gracious as well as the need to be tenacious in our stance for the truth. It would be a welcome (and needed) addition in light of the prevalent ugliness of the blogosphere.
In the arguement of the age day theory, the implications of Exodus 20:8-11 that God has defined a “day” for us and established our work week with the same “days” as he used in the creation. I must object to the arguement waged against the young earth view because it is in conflict with “obvious’ old earth evidence. If one will take the time to study Russel Humphries work, it will show how one using biblical assumptions can make sence out of the observations. It must also be remembered that unbelieving man is at emnity with God and His truth. To accomodate the absolute truth of God’s word to be palatable to those who hate it and its implications is not being faithful to scripture or the God who gave it to us. As I have read these posts, there has been no mention that the world of “science” (that controlled by materialistic, naturalists) works under that rule that the supernatural is not allowed (though this is violated by removing the events to the so distant past the the natural, observable laws must have been suspended for a time to allow such things as life to arise from nonliving matter and entropy to reverse and create complexity). Modern science texts recatagorize established laws as Theories to eleveate other propositions to the level with those which are unarguable. All this is said to point out the absurdity of using sinful man’s interpretations of God’s creation (which they deny) to explain His creation that displays His Glory. God’s word is clear, either we believe it as He intended, or we don’t.
Dirk
AMEN PHANTOMOFTHEBOOKSTORE
phantomofthebookstore,
I’m well aware that Galileo wasn’t killed. That’s why I said “Should Galileo have been put to death after all“, meaning that he *was* a blasphemous heretic for objecting to the received scriptural interpretation, and thus the accepted theology of that time. The church finally capitulated to the fact that the earth *does* go around the sun, which I think was a good thing. It’s not clear that it was to many here, given some of the principles being advanced.
Which was my point.
Dirk Wageman,
Russell Humphreys’ work in Starlight and Time, and the cosmology he advances makes sense of the scriptures, but only by taking a wrecking by to the scientific end of things. His work is an embarrassing mess, scientifically, and just another example of how “false” Christianity is in the eyes of scientists, who see Humphreys’ pseudo-science for what it is. Better to just say you don’t know how it happened and that God can do anything — a totally respectable position — than to provide a treatise in support of Christianity that is more closely aligned with flat-earth and geo-centrism ideas than real cosmologies.
If you’re are buying what Humphreys is selling, you’re simply not being discerning, and he’s putting one over on you with technical jargon. Ask your friendly cosmologist or physicist at your nearby university.
Science is a naturalistic epistemology; it *only* studies evidence and mechanisms of the natural world. It neither affirms nor denies the supernatural — it’s not equipped to address the question of supernatural phenomena at all. That’s a *feature*, not a bug, and Christianity has endorsed and enabled science for centuries on the basis of learning and discovering how God’s physical laws work and interact. Science is limited, then, to questions about the physical world. Metaphysical questions can and should be taken up by other epistemologies — theology, philosophy, faith. It’s precise because science does not try to understand the mechanically un-understandable (the supernatural) that it makes the progress it does in understanding the mechanically understandable (the physical world).
As for believing God’s Word as intended, I think that’s of utmost importance. The dispute hinges on what God actually intended to say. I think it’s “clearly” saying something different than you do.
-Touchstone
If anybody wants to learn about quantum physics just check out Chuck Misslers’ website. He’ll tell you all about it.
Touchstone-
Thanks for clarifying the Galileo comment. I apologize if I misinterpreted your words.
One another note- Do you believe that it is within the scope of God’s ability to create the universe in a literal six day, 24-hour period? Is it within His power to do so? Or are you merely contending that He did something different?
Biblically we must submit to the truth that God is sovereign over His creation. He has the ability to speak the universe into creation in a moment, just as Christ had the ability and authority to heal from a distance (Matt. 8:5-14). We must admit that God is able to do as He pleases.
Science is our (mankind’s) observation of God’s creative work. Just as those who tasted the wine Jesus created at the wedding of Cana believed that it had gone through the aging and fermenting process, it was actually only moments old (John 2:1-11).
It is fully within the scope of God’s ability to create the universe with the physical characteristics of age in order to make it habitable for man, yet in actuality only be 7000-10,000 years old. It is possible that our observations are correct (just like the wedding guests at Cana) yet our information incorrect about the initial origins.
It is possible when we understand that the worlds were framed by a sovereign God (Heb.11:1-2).
We must also submit that God has spoken with clarity. The book of Genesis was written by Moses to the Israelites (who had witnessed God’s miracles against Egypt) as they were wandering in the wilderness. How would they have understood God’s message to them in Genesis 1-3?
Please note Terry Wragg’s comments above on the characteristics of Scripture. It was very well done.
Well put Pastor MacArthur. I too look forward to the release of the book…
May the Lord continue to strengthen you as you proclaim His truth to all who have eyes to see and ears to hear
In regards to the other discussions going on in the comments section …some people just like to hear themselves talk (or better yet, read what their fingers type).
Pride strikes again…
phantomofthebookstore,
You said:
One another note- Do you believe that it is within the scope of God’s ability to create the universe in a literal six day, 24-hour period? Is it within His power to do so? Or are you merely contending that He did something different?
I believe it absolutely is within his power to create the entire universe in six solar days. Or in a nanosecond, that’s what He wills. That’s a natural implication of “omnipotent”, isn’t it?
I am contending that he did something different, based on God’s general revelation to us. The rocks, the stars, the very earth testifies to God’s *choice* of long timelines.
Could he have made it look and act old, when it is in fact, just a few thousand years old? As I said, God can do anything. He could have just made you alone, and all this is just an elaborate illusion — you’re just a consciousness in a box, thinking that the hands on your keyboard are real, and that I actually exist somewhere on the other end of a network router.
God *could* do that. I don’t think He did that, either, but *could* isn’t very helpful when we have an omnipotent God in view.
Maybe the earth and the stars and the rocks in your garden are all part of an exquisite illusion. It’s a possibility, and it’s your prerogative to believe that, and John MacArthur’s right to preach that. I just find such mystic views of creation, of God’s general revelation completely uncompelling, and so much desparate defense not of the *truth* of the Bible itself, but of the *truth* of one’s particular view of the Bible.
-Touchstone
Renee,
Thanks for your insight: “pride strikes again”
Yes, you are right, pride lurkes in all of our hearts and so does jealousy and it can be a challenge to overcome them but by God’s grace and by the power of the Holy Spirit we can triumph over them.
“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings”…..Jeremiah 17v9,10
“Then I said, I have labored in vain, I have spent my strenght for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgement is with the Lord, and my work with my God”…..Isaiah 49v4
Wiggidy, Wiggidy, Wiggidy, WHA? The Apostle Paul battled against the UN or Southern Baptists? I’m sorry. Come Again?
Armchair,
Why must I repeat myself?
Armchair,
Why do I need to repeat myself?
MacArthur: However, the absolute worst strategy for ministering the gospel in a climate like this is for Christians to imitate the uncertainty or echo the cynicism of the postmodern perspective—and in effect drag the Bible and the gospel into it.
Response: “The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is known by God.” God does the knowing, he knows us in response to our love for him.
MacArthur: Instead, we need to affirm against the spirit of the age that God has spoken with the utmost clarity, authority, and finality through His Son (Hebrews 1:1–2).
Reply: Jesus said, “I am the truth.” The incarnation: God became a man, Jesus the Messiah. A man is the truth. The truth is a man. Certainly authority and finality. But no one has attempted to explain what the significance is of the Truth being a living, human being.
Propositional truth remains, yet Jesus has certainly expanded the concept of truth to include this idea that a human being is now the truth. The “clarity” has yet to be demonstrated.
[And if the "truth" is so clear, then why all the debate over the Letter of the Scripture?]
MacArthur: And we have the infallible record of that message in Scripture (2 Peter 1:19–21).
Reply: No argument here. Infallible, yet what sort of clarity does MacArthur’s “infallible record” statement guarantee when the current thread has Christians bogged down in this creation debate?
If ever the concept of “intellectual assent” was appropriate, it certainly applies in the Six-Day Creation doctrine.
Many branches of Christianity insist on belief in some “magical” element in their theology. Catholics insist on transubstantiation. Dispensationalists insist on the rapture. And Creationists insist on a literal six-day creation.
Oops! There I go getting into a “fruitless debate” (alluding to Paul’s description of it). It’s interesting that MacArthur doesn’t mention Creationism anywhere in this post, yet that’s what predominates this thread.
“Oops! There I go getting into a “fruitless debate” (alluding to Paul’s description of it). It’s interesting that MacArthur doesn’t mention Creationism anywhere in this post, yet that’s what predominates this thread.”
Whyte, according to one of your replies in another post,
“I hope that the discussion we’re having here has not descended to the point of a destructive quarrel. We certainly are not going to split a congregation here in cyberspace.”
..Then perhaps the issue of creationism is in this current thread is not really a fruitless debate according to previous comments you have made.
Interesting posts. The issue here seems to me is faith. Salvation is by faith and science will never prove many of the events God calls us to have faith about in order to be Christains. I can’t help appreciating the delima Christians scientist get confronted with studing in the scientific fields. On the one hand the Bible says the Universe was created in six days and the evidence wittnesses to a very old Earth. The Bible calls us to a position of faith and assures us we are right in holding that belief. I for one will continue that possition and stand on the promises of the Bible and God. I very much enjoyed John MacArthur book Think Biblically! and it seems right on target on this subject. Having make the leap of faith to salvation one surly wouldn’t make the leap back to non-belief and eternal damnation.
Ha! You repeated yourself about repeating yourself! That was possibly not on purpose, but definitely hilarious! Very witty!
Now, you said:
“Who are some examples of Satan’s ministers transformed into ministers of righteousness? It certainly would include people who pose as Christian leaders, but are really dedicated to UN agenda 21. This would include people like B Graham, R Warren, A Mohler and M Dever. All Southern Baptists and all dedicated to the UN agenda. The apostle Paul battled against these deceitful workers. It’s a real disgrace that you invite some of them in your pulpit.”
The confusion came with the last three lines. You named 4 people, then said Paul battled “these deceitful workers”. It sounded like you were saying Paul battled Billy Graham, Rick Warren, Al Mohler and Mark Dever.
But Calling Out John MacArthur for letting Al Mohler and Mark Dever speak in his pulpit because they agree with UN Agenda 21? In your mind, what is UN Agenda 21 about? Why is that the common bond between Satan’s ministers of righteousness?
And I’ve been TRYING not to get into the main thrust of the argument, but this is so silly. Some comments from the resident dingleberry:
1. Genesis 1-3 is a Wayyiqtol contstruct narrative form. It has to be literal because it’s written in a concrete Hebrew construction. There’s no way around that, and I take task with anyone who wants to pretend like Hebrew narrative is ambiguous. Beyond that, there’s an ordinal number AND an “evening + morning” connected to each day. Every single time the Tanakh has an ordinal number with regards to a day, it’s a 24 hour period…though the Hebrew didn’t think of a day in 24 hours. A day started with the evening and ran through the morning until the next evening…hence the second qualifing phrase.
So play all the exegetical games you want. Ordinal numbers + “evening and morning” + Wayyiqtol (Waw Consequtive + Preterite following a Perfective verb) = you need to provide a LOT of evidence to suggest that Genesis 1-3 isn’t CLEARLY a historical narrative passage, giving a straightforward, historical, eyewitness account. I’ve heard the “poetic structure” argument, or the “evidence of chiasm” argument and around 40 others. The Hebrew is REALLY clear and a majority of the Liberals I’ve read agree that it appears to be a narrative construction; they just outright reject it’s historicity. You can throw a philosophical tantrum, but not a linguistic one.
2. The whole “allegory doesn’t negate history nor doctrine” thing? Come on. If Adam and Eve were real people, and “the curse = death” was metaphorical, why did Jesus need to die a physical death as the final day of atonement sacrifice for the actual sins of Israel? Why does Jesus have to “really die” then? Christianity is the only religious system where there actually needs to be physical death for spiritual restoration, and that’s because spiritual death and physical death are related…and that’s on the basis of the injection of “real death” in the Genesis account. Hence Paul talks about it in Romans 5! If Adam’s death was metaphorical “falling from enlightenment”, then Paul’s argument in Romans 5 is total nonsense. You don’t respond to metaphorical death with real death.
It’s also interesting how all the liberals I’ve read that reject the reality of original sin also question the atonement too. That connection is there and saying “no it isn’t” is not a counter argument.
3. I have faith in science. I do NOT have faith in scientists. (I don’t worship at the temple of the PhD either.) Silly thing though; Can you show me “science” that’s not done by scientists? All of them are victim to the effects of sin on the mind and every last one of them needs an authoritative epistemological anchor. When they reject that, they ULTIMATELY reject “real” science and are attempting to perform observations, hypothesis development and hypothesis confirmation in a psuedo-reality (which they are inconsistent in holding to…hence they perform scientific tasks regularly).
You talk about “the clear witness of creation”. I say that statement is a steaming pile. Mankind has learned a LOT about the world around him, but the more we learn the more we realize how freakishly complex everything is, and we never agree on anything for more than a few years. You talk about distant stars and apparent age. How about you explain to me the relationship between time, gravity, mass, energy and space? Since when do we know enough about the universe to even declare that there’s a problem in the first place? Just because the stars look far away and we think that contradicts a clear reading of Genesis doesn’t make it so. How in the world do you know that there’s not going to be ANOTHER paradigm shift in astrophysics, sometime in the future (not like that’s EVER happened), where the whole scientific community gains a monumental understanding of light and time and realizes that light and time are inter-related (or not related) in a way that we previously didn’t have a clue about? Since when was our knowledge of the universe even REMOTELY complete? What’s funny is that the cynical intellectuals, in EVERY period of history, always argue about *science* like there’s nothing left to learn.
4. Bottom line – The clear understanding of creation comes from the clear epistemological anchor of Scripture. All the *data* regarding ANYTHING, and the corresponding interpretations of such data, needs to be understood through the authoritative lens of scripture. God is the only objective *knower* in creation and only through aligning our *knowing* to his *knowing* can we *know* what there is TO *know*, you know?
The reason I can make sense of distant starlight is the same reason I pay my taxes.
[...] The Time for Truth [...]
I haven’t read all of these comments, just a few. But I have long held the notion that God created the earth in a state of perfection. That was “in the beginning”.
When Lucifer was cast out of Heaven, he was sent to earth. In his anger and wrath, he made waste of the earth. I don’t believe God made the earth “without form, and void….” Satan ruined what God had created perfectly.
It is not at all hard to think that the earth existed for a very long time before Satan came to it. I believe when God created it, the earth had the forms of life that He put on it. I think that is why scientists find things that can’t be explained by today’s methods.
When God (The Trinity) came to reform the earth, He did it in the time specified in the ongoing verses of Genisis 1. I believe that the forms of life were dormant in the earth. All God had to do was call forth what He had already created. God said, let there be thus and so, and it was done immediately. God had already prepared the earth to have these things He now called forth. So, it isn’t any stretch of the imagination to believe that God re-made the earth in 6 days.
I believe all things in the Bible are true or are parables to teach us lessons. Jesus used stories and parables to teach things that were beyond the minds of the people of His day to understand.
This does away with the myth of evolution. God created all species with the form they were to have forever. Yes, we evolve as we have better food and medical care. But we don’t evolve from one species to another. I don’t see how this can cause anyone to doubt the accuracy of the Bible.
Sand7
Emergent is out of the mind of man, just as Aaron’s two sons brought strange or profane fire before the alter in Leviticus 10, emergent is a modern day strange fire. It is the of spirit anti-Christ, replacing the anointing or presence of God with with anything it can, for lack of the anointing. This is because of lukewarm hearts. Instead of repenting, we look for something to attract people. It is experimentation, for lack of direction or hearing from God. This also, due to lukewarm heats. Nobody even misses God when He leaves, they just go out and get some candles and incense and techno music on some digital boards and power points (big production) is the attitude when we don’t have God. People won’t miss God if we entertain them. Of course if they would believe in truth, maybe God would come back. Remember Jesus said, “I am the truth”? He is the living word. If we don’t believe in absolute truth, then we don’t believe in Jesus. Unbelief is a sin. I tell you in the name of Jesus this emergent movement is the forerunner to the apostate church.
So as both sides argue in the temple, back and forth with each body seeing nonsense and lack of clarity in the other – Christ, passes by…she’s poor…she gives her all to God..The Sadducees fail to see her, and the Pharisees ..as always lost in loud arguments..and even the disciples were blind to a great act of God.
All I ask is pray for one another..please…but I guarantee you… When and If you see the Truth you will see the Truth.
Great Article!