tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post4097406572048154932..comments2023-09-27T05:04:37.119-04:00Comments on THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: "What should we preach about Creation?" by John PiperMike Felkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01974482615713418707noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-21098738815755200222012-04-11T00:44:27.830-04:002012-04-11T00:44:27.830-04:00Trust in the Lord.. and lean not on thine own unde...Trust in the Lord.. and lean not on thine own understanding. What makes sense is not the standard. What sayeth the scripture is. Thank you for standing on Scripture here. Interestingly, all of our problems with starlight and time, age, dinosaurs, virgin births, rising from the dead disappear, when we believe Scripture. Did you know that when God makes things they are fully functional, mature, with an appearance of history they never had. God is not deceptive, when he made Adam a man with intellect from the word go. God was not deceptive when he turned water into wine. Interestingly Adam wasn't a a child, and that wine did not grow on vines, unless you want to place human reason above the Scriptures. You know our Lord fed a multitude of people from fish that never swam, or lived for that matter. What about light without stars and sun? Did you know that Moses shined from being in the presence of God, and even in revelation we read how the sun and moon aren't necessary because the Lord will light the place. I have noticed much more activity from the compromise positions lately. Why believe in a supernatural God, for that matter. These compromise positions are unnecessary and harmful. Many of these men have come to believe that dropping a ball 100 times and concluding that gravity exists to a high degree of accuracy is the same as looking at a rock and concluding it is billions of years old. There are so many assumptions that must be made for these dating methods. If you hold uniformitarian views, by faith alone, you can impose science, so called upon scripture, yet you cannot observe, nor repeat these ages. Let us not seek to make scripture palatable to man. Christ born of a virgin, dying on a cross, and risen again, ascended on high, seated at the right hand of the father is folly by human reason and science so called, yet we believe that He is, because we believe the testimony of Scripture! Your faith determines your facts. We need to stand on Scripture. God is over nature, not under nature. While I do not want to be divisive, we must stand for and defend the Scriptures from compromise. I recently came across some pastors on a forum discussing how to topple the creationist view. They said we won't accomplish it through exegesis, but rather they need to come up with stories that will make it acceptable to the people. While, I have profited from Piper's teachings, I am disappointed at his position. I praise God for his raising up men to defend the Scriptures. Soli Deo GloriaMichaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01521037974194375720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-82577988025980390072012-01-30T14:45:11.134-05:002012-01-30T14:45:11.134-05:00I see you have not read Sailhamer's work on th...I see you have not read Sailhamer's work on the topic. I subscribe to it and find it textual. You ought to study it. Sailhamer is neither old nor new earth. Takes no side. I was his student. If you have questions on his view, let me know.<br />ed paynetenjuiceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07724056925029207615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-76593992048999576912010-09-20T23:20:38.215-04:002010-09-20T23:20:38.215-04:00I would ask not how dinosaurs fossilized, but not ...I would ask not how dinosaurs fossilized, but not sheep; instead, I would ask how these dinosaurs fossilized at all. Mass fossil graveyards all over the world (and not just dinosaurs), to me, cries out "global flood!" Like you, i'm not a geologist. But i've never heard of a good reason for explaining the trillions of fossils that are found worldwide; especially of marine life and soft-bodies creatures. Such preservation had to take place rapidly. <br /><br />As to the plates shifting, you are carrying in some assumptions: namely, that the rates have remained a constant. Creationist geologists are quite convinced that the global flood provides the best explanation for this data. Again, i'd recommend looking into this. In fact, one of the foremost authorities on plate techtonics, John Baumgardner, has proposed a model for this and is convinced that the biblical data provides the best explanation of the evidence. I'd recommend looking into his work (on answersingenesis.org). <br /><br />For me, its what the Bible teaches that really matters. Whether its dealing with supernatural events like the resurrection of Christ or plate techtonics, I am fully convinced that the Bible is God's inspired Word. Hopefully that can give you an idea of where i'm coming from.Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636380476793694320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-30792094711532098392010-09-20T23:20:22.971-04:002010-09-20T23:20:22.971-04:00Hey Andrew, I understand your questions, as i'...Hey Andrew, I understand your questions, as i've had them myself. I would highly recommend the websites I provided, as they answer these questions much better than what I am capable. This is because the physical sciences are not my expertise, though I dabble with them here and there. <br /><br />I really don't see a problem with dinosaurs and man co-existing anymore than I can see lions, tigers, and hippos (an extremely dangerous, aggressive, and large animal) as a problem in co-existing with man. In most cases, animals (regardless of how large or dangerous), separate themselves from man. Actually, its probably more the case that man would have separated themselves from heavily populated dinosaur areas. Even if this seems far fetched, I don't see it as impossible or irreconcilable with the biblical record. <br /><br />As to the disappearance, let me first say that I don't see any reason why Noah wouldn't have taken dinosaurs on the ark, especially given the fact that they would have fit the description. Furthermore, i'm sure God would have brought forth babies instead of fully grown. When the animals left the ark after the flood, it is probable that the conditions were much different than before; especially since most vegetation would have been wiped out in the flood. Many factors could have contributed to the dinosaur's extinction.Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636380476793694320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-14724643817785029352010-09-20T23:19:45.275-04:002010-09-20T23:19:45.275-04:00Hey Andrew, I understand your questions, as i'...Hey Andrew, I understand your questions, as i've had them myself. I would highly recommend the websites I provided, as they answer these questions much better than what I am capable. This is because the physical sciences are not my expertise, though I dabble with them here and there. <br /><br />I really don't see a problem with dinosaurs and man co-existing anymore than I can see lions, tigers, and hippos (an extremely dangerous, aggressive, and large animal) as a problem in co-existing with man. In most cases, animals (regardless of how large or dangerous), separate themselves from man. Actually, its probably more the case that man would have separated themselves from heavily populated dinosaur areas. Even if this seems far fetched, I don't see it as impossible or irreconcilable with the biblical record. <br /><br />As to the disappearance, let me first say that I don't see any reason why Noah wouldn't have taken dinosaurs on the ark, especially given the fact that they would have fit the description. Furthermore, i'm sure God would have brought forth babies instead of fully grown. When the animals left the ark after the flood, it is probable that the conditions were much different than before; especially since most vegetation would have been wiped out in the flood. Many factors could have contributed to the dinosaur's extinction. <br /><br />I would ask not how dinosaurs fossilized, but not sheep; instead, I would ask how these dinosaurs fossilized at all. Mass fossil graveyards all over the world (and not just dinosaurs), to me, cries out "global flood!" Like you, i'm not a geologist. But i've never heard of a good reason for explaining the trillions of fossils that are found worldwide; especially of marine life and soft-bodies creatures. Such preservation had to take place rapidly. <br /><br />As to the plates shifting, you are carrying in some assumptions: namely, that the rates have remained a constant. Creationist geologists are quite convinced that the global flood provides the best explanation for this data. Again, i'd recommend looking into this. In fact, one of the foremost authorities on plate techtonics, John Baumgardner, has proposed a model for this and is convinced that the biblical data provides the best explanation of the evidence. I'd recommend looking into his work (on answersingenesis.org). <br /><br />For me, its what the Bible teaches that really matters. Whether its dealing with supernatural events like the resurrection of Christ or plate techtonics, I am fully convinced that the Bible is God's inspired Word. Hopefully that can give you an idea of where i'm coming from.Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636380476793694320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-66326620003747309902010-09-20T15:13:41.843-04:002010-09-20T15:13:41.843-04:00Hey Mike, I haven't browsed through the sites ...Hey Mike, I haven't browsed through the sites you recommended in your reply! Sorry. But I'll make sure to do that (although I might have visited them, I've had similar discussions). <br /><br />I find your view on dinosaurs pretty interesting, since regarding them as ordinary beasts created on day 6 raises some practical questions. Given the diversity of dinosaurs that existed over the ages, I don't see how humans, or larger mammals would have stood a chance on a planet ruled by (carnivorous) lizards, land-based and flying... And also, I think it is difficult to answer how this whole variety of dinosaurs just disappeared over less than 2 thousand years. It just somehow doesn't add up, other than it is a way that the people at the time put down God's message. They sure did their best.<br />I'm sure noah wouldn't have let any of them get aboard the ark, but it still leaves it unexplained how we may find fossilized skeletons of dinosaurs, and not of sheep.<br /><br />Another thought: I'm not a geologist, but as far as I know the earth's crust have been moving since the time it is solid, exactly bc under the crust it is not solid yet - and so do continents move. First we have to accept folding as a process that creates mountain ranges, a pretty basic concept. Then if we consider that the horisontal movement, collision of continental plains creates the two to raise vertically, we'll have to consider 8850-ish in meters for Chomolangma. Now compare this with the fact that these plains move roughly 2 centimeters a year. If we multiply this with 6000 years, it adds up to 120 meters, the length of a soccer field. That just doesn't seem to be right. And it's only the Indian subcontinent. If we consider the American continent which separated from Africa, and do the math... 6000-something years is just way too few. <br /><br />I'm sorry, I don't wanna push these things. But they really seem obvious to me.Andrewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-6109766456945055312010-09-19T18:08:32.466-04:002010-09-19T18:08:32.466-04:00Thanks for your insightful comment, Andrew. Here&...Thanks for your insightful comment, Andrew. Here's a few points to chew on. First, I take Genesis plainly and have no problems with dinosaurs. I think the problem comes when we try to "fit them in," as opposed to going with the plain sense of the text. When we do this, we see that they are just another land animal that was probably created on day six. <br /><br />Yes, Genesis reflects what people believe at that time. But since its God's Word (2 Tim. 3:16), I should believe it too. And I agree that genres need to be distinguished here. When this is done, it should be very clear that Genesis is written as an historical narrative. <br /><br />You speak of the "core meaning of the Bible," and I would argue that a faulty reading of Genesis would indeed effect this. For instance, Jesus Himself believed that Genesis is literal history, as well as Paul. Look into their quotes and allusions to Genesis and you'll see this quite clearly. Doctrinally, if Genesis isn't literal, then how are we to deal with original sin? Did sin <i>really</i> enter into the world through a man and woman?<br /><br />As to the evidence, I don't have any problem with the evidence within my view of Genesis. Since the Bible is God's Word, I view it as the authority in interpreting all evidence. For instance, have the continents <i>always</i> been moving? And for how long? <br /><br />If you'd like more specifics, i'd recommend checking out answersingenesis.org and creation.com where these evidences are dealt with in a biblical framework by those who are experts in their fields.Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636380476793694320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-47023151351860090722010-09-19T09:23:59.584-04:002010-09-19T09:23:59.584-04:00If you take genesis literally, you'll have not...If you take genesis literally, you'll have noticed, that its animal kingdom is very much like that of today (regarding mammals or birds). Then you'll perhaps have a problem as to how dinosaurs (for ex.) fit into the picture. <br />Obviously, genesis reflects the grasp that people had at the time about the creation of the earth. I don't think that it would defeat the core meaning of the Bible, if you acknowledge this. What is needed is more insight into the history of the time and better, multifaceted hermeneutics (e.g. distinguishing genres in the Bible). Regardless of the number of years, salvation history still applies. <br /><br />But for evidence, anyone will find plenty of archeological, geological, genetic, even lihguistic evidence, just to name a few. Only a sound mind is needed, and the ability to count (for ex. how slow continents are moving - cf. the Himalaya or better yet, the Appallachian mountains). But if you just think of Radiocarbon dating or ice-age primitive wall paints.<br /><br />Canonical sciences seem to overlap and support the fact that Earth isn't a mere few thousands of years old.Andrewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-65255886960928328852010-08-27T13:43:26.441-04:002010-08-27T13:43:26.441-04:00@anonymous, let me ask you then: on what basis do ...@anonymous, let me ask you then: on what basis do you believe that the earth is millions of years old?Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01974482615713418707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-3792039256743958292010-08-27T13:35:44.351-04:002010-08-27T13:35:44.351-04:00Mike , it's no surprises Russell and the BS ge...Mike , it's no surprises Russell and the BS get no mention, truth is just as in the 1st century church , they were/are considered a nuisance that will not go away, yet despite this millions around the globe even some of the remotest villages and tribes have been and are still influenced by their views . Also many scholars and lay persons who are intersted in the topic of creation from all Christain persuasions who hold to the old earth view see no conflict at all in also believing in a global flood , so this is not unique to the WTS or the BS movementand personally from my own perspective I dont see what one has to do with the other ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-28368316963983144442010-08-25T21:27:06.012-04:002010-08-25T21:27:06.012-04:00@anonymous, I would direct you to Dr. Terry Morten...@anonymous, I would direct you to Dr. Terry Mortenson's work, "The Great Turning point" for a historical overview on this entire issue. Dr. Mortenson actually did his Ph.D thesis on this. And interestingly, if I recall correctly, he never mentions once Russell or the "Bible Students" in the historical development. And contrary to what you say, it was the clergy who was bringing out this controversial view up and against other clergy. Sure, Russell was "a" voice, but by no means the most prominent. <br /><br />But either way, regardless of who gets credit, I have a very strong opinion on this very issue in that I find the "old earth" view to be a serious compromise on the authority of Scripture. And what's even more interesting is that the WT actually believes in a global flood, but also an old earth. Makes absolute zero sense, which is why there is not one geologist who would hold to such a view.Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01974482615713418707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-21083526035738431262010-08-25T05:01:52.932-04:002010-08-25T05:01:52.932-04:00"these views on creation were around long bef..."these views on creation were around long before Russell"..<br /><br />That may be so , by a very small silent minority. The Bible Students , pushed them to fore and published them bringing them to a wide global audience despite mainstream clerical opposition. The phenomenal Photo Drama which was undisputedly epic for its time took those very contraversial views at that time to a global audience and opened the debate , I find it fascinating that these views are now becoming mainstream and that the young earth viewpoint is now increasingly considerd the contraversial view.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-33387122424103011032010-08-24T18:26:51.611-04:002010-08-24T18:26:51.611-04:00@anonymous, actually, these views on creation were...@anonymous, actually, these views on creation were around long before Russell, so I wouldn't credit any of this to Russell.Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636380476793694320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-65311649406232278292010-08-24T13:47:35.375-04:002010-08-24T13:47:35.375-04:00Interesting reading , it seems to me that an ever ...Interesting reading , it seems to me that an ever growing number of scholars particularly from Evangelical circles are adopting Charles Taze Russells and the Bible Students views on creation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-26507558956182251362010-07-26T11:06:50.580-04:002010-07-26T11:06:50.580-04:00Nice post but i believe that most scholars would a...Nice post but i believe that most scholars would agree that most jews in the first century believed in the future resurrection before Christ's resurrectionMike R.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-31257577788612523292010-06-14T16:38:31.350-04:002010-06-14T16:38:31.350-04:00Hey Russ, thanks for your comment. Being a reform...Hey Russ, thanks for your comment. Being a reformed YEC myself, I agree that there is a trend going on in reformed circles to abandon the authority of the Bible on this issue. That being the case, I think more of us (including myself) need to be taking more of a stand on this issue. <br /><br />Lately, i've been focusing more on counter-cult apologetics, but i'd very much like to get back into the creation/evolution stuff.Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01974482615713418707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-33767542582487180022010-06-14T15:56:06.042-04:002010-06-14T15:56:06.042-04:00I too have been devoted to Piper's wonderful B...I too have been devoted to Piper's wonderful Biblical sound exegesis in areas like Romans and Hebrews, but like Grudem and Sailhamer he sadly sinks without a ripple when it comes to Genesis. Maybe if he preaches through the book he'll come to realize how off he really is, sadly rejecting the Bible as ultimate authority when it comes to origins, deluded into imagining modern pseudo-science is anything other than the very fascist crock the Soviets were that cost them the Space Race against the then creationist US before we turned away from the God Who gave us the victory to adopt the religion and methods of the loser that is destroying us with pseudo-science today. See the refutation of Sailhamer's/Piper's antiBiblical nonsense at https://creation.com/creation-compromises where you can see it's just a rehashed version of the old discredited "gap theory." Also see Sailhamer's ridiculous "Genesis Unbound" exploded at http://creation.com/unbinding-the-rules. Like the liar Hugh Ross Sailhamer's abuse of the sacred text he, like Piper, falsely claims to revere as ultimate authority is nauseating, especially since I think both of them really believe their delusion, like similarly deluded Warfield and Hodge long ago when the helped Reformed "scholarship" abandon God's Word for Darwin's (regardless of Hodge's antipathy for Darwin). There's clearly spiritual deception going on here that has manifestly overwhelmed Reformed intellects generally (e.g. the late Jim Boice) and deceived them into abandoning God's Word as ultimate authority. See David Hall's "Holding Fast to Creation" at http://e-sword-users.org/users/index.php (presently unavailable due to maintenance)Russ Davishttp://nonenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-58182285951927777842010-06-13T09:10:05.477-04:002010-06-13T09:10:05.477-04:00I think Piper has lost it. I really do. I'm no...I think Piper has lost it. I really do. I'm not sure if his Calvinism has supplanted the Holy Spirit in him, but his elitist pride in himself and his exegesis is hugely off-putting.<br /><br />I'm glad he's sat himself down for a while. He needs it.Mark Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09655109309591784989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-86549357323798445542010-06-09T23:22:54.726-04:002010-06-09T23:22:54.726-04:00Mike, either you have been eating your wheaties or...Mike, either you have been eating your wheaties or the Holy Spirit truly inspired you. My money's on the Holy Spirit. This is an awesome post. I agree mostly agree with you on this post.mmcelhaneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567242628894011776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-62001666269733661252010-06-09T15:11:49.219-04:002010-06-09T15:11:49.219-04:00Thank you Jon, I really do appreciate that! And y...Thank you Jon, I really do appreciate that! And yes, your assumption is correct.Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01974482615713418707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28227207.post-87708498595142349412010-06-09T14:12:50.790-04:002010-06-09T14:12:50.790-04:00I assume you are a layman and have not gone to sem...I assume you are a layman and have not gone to seminary. Even if you have gone through seminary, I must commend your analysis.Jonnoreply@blogger.com