tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post5135000786269993939..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Walking the DogPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-86025234012348000312010-09-11T15:44:53.799-07:002010-09-11T15:44:53.799-07:00PuritanReformed,
I never made any comment, ever, ...<strong>PuritanReformed,</strong><br /><br />I never made any comment, ever, about Calvin's interpretive work relative to Gen. and literal vs. figurative. I don't want to talk about that, at all; it is actually a waste of time to do so in this context.<br /><br />My original point, my middle point, and now my last point was that Keller's approach mirrors Calvin's approach quite closely. He sees a difference between the laity and technicians; your comment presupposes the same distinction in re. to Calvin, so in all actuality in trying to deny my point you affirm and make it for me!<br /><br />PeaceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-40061736083153718932010-09-11T12:31:59.793-07:002010-09-11T12:31:59.793-07:00@recredtedinChrist:
The issue here is Calvin'...@recredtedinChrist:<br /><br />The issue here is Calvin's view on creaion. While Calvin does indeed speak of God accomodating His speech to us, we nowhere see Calvin saying that Genesis is either (1)figurative, or (2) not describing the creation process as a human observer (if he was present) would have described it.<br /><br />Everyone can read for themselves Calvin's commentaries for themselves to see whether that is so (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom01.vii.i.html).<br /><br />I have previoulsy refuted Biologos' use of Calvin's commentary on Gen. 1:6through reading it in context.<br />(http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/2010/06/biologos-and-downgrade-of.html). As for Gen. 1:16, Calvin was denying that the words of the Bible must be astronomically precise, NOT that the event itself is not true from the view of uneducated man on earth.<br /><br />Therefore, it is most untrue to use Calvin as a person who would approve of any teaching that treats Gen. 1 as either figurative or not true from our persepctive. Calvin does not open the possibility of using his position to endorse anything short of 6-day creation. The distinction between learned and unlearned is between technical knowledge and mere observational descriptions, not some esteric third way endorsed by Keller.Daniel Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-51882920542649332272010-09-10T10:48:14.273-07:002010-09-10T10:48:14.273-07:00PS Dan, why don't you send me a link to a post...PS Dan, why don't you send me a link to a post where either you or Frank focus on explaining the meaning of Genesis 1-2:3. I don't subscribe to your blogs and I might have missed it. However, in the posts I have read you guys seem a lot more interested in talking about how other people are wrong, than what the text is actually trying to say. If you have a post on it, send the link my way.Shawn Virgil Goodwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03273814575178508044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1453044008542350852010-09-10T10:45:51.550-07:002010-09-10T10:45:51.550-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Shawn Virgil Goodwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03273814575178508044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-80528153949260614412010-09-10T10:35:53.693-07:002010-09-10T10:35:53.693-07:00Dan: Nope, I happen to have read quite a bit of yo...Dan: Nope, I happen to have read quite a bit of your posts, but I see very little serious exegesis. On some other issues, a little, but on Genesis 1, you are woefully lacking serious engagement with the text. And What about the Hebrews 3-4 issue? Scripture interpreting Scripture?Shawn Virgil Goodwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03273814575178508044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-70457020126807759952010-09-10T07:04:43.870-07:002010-09-10T07:04:43.870-07:00Not sure what purpose the discussion of literal vs...Not sure what purpose the discussion of literal vs. figurative six days serves other than as some sort of litmus test of the veracity of scriptures. Mostly I've found that the more secular or agnostic "debaters" on this are really looking to pin Believers to the literal six day creationism so that they can write them off as unscientific kooks.<br /><br />I think we should take the text as written, but at the same time, I also think that the topic is essentially IMMATERIAL to the overall gospel message. It usual serves only as a focal point of dissent and division.<br /><br />It makes NO DIFFERENCE unless you NEED it to in order to pigeonhole those who believe one way or the other into some predetermined category. And again, those who seem to push the question the hardest are those with an agenda to marginalize believers.<br /><br />Kind of strikes at one of the earlier "NEXT!" posts about which questions to really spend your time answering. There's just so many weightier issues out there, I wonder why people so often get bogged down in this one?Steve Bervenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02137453259611119361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-60235319564345922772010-09-10T05:46:33.951-07:002010-09-10T05:46:33.951-07:00Keller is trying to take a middle road that is rea...Keller is trying to take a middle road that is really just a different road than the literal truth of the historical account of Genesis. Like I alluded to earlier, I put his article/paper in the same category as the attempt by Vern Poythress to create a middle road between continuationists and cessationists. These are two different beliefs and cannot be reconciled...plain and simple. People have no business trying to do so, either, because it just weakens the positions, of which only one can be correct (which doesn't mean any people on either side know everything there is to know).Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13987985549747283669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-81227603410921638602010-09-09T22:40:34.049-07:002010-09-09T22:40:34.049-07:00Quote cont.
As his discussion of astronomy indica...<strong>Quote cont.</strong><br /><br /><em>As his discussion of astronomy indicates, Calvin was concerned that the true and genuine meaning of Scripture not conflict with the understanding of the world and human nature developed by the liberal sciences. Because he was convinced that the Scripture was a book for the unlearned, he did not expect to find in Scripture scientific accounts of the nature of the world, for he was convinced that these could be found only in the writings of the learned. Thus, when Scripture states that there are waters above the heavens, Calvin knows that his learned peers will find this contrary to the way they have come to understand the universe.<br /><br /><strong>For, to my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing here is treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. Here the Spirit of God would teach all men without exception; and therefore what Gregory declares falsely and in vain respecting statues and pictures is truly applicable to the history of creation, that it is the book of the unlearned. [Calvin's Comm. on Gen. 1:6]</strong><br /><br />Beyond reminding his readers that Scripture was written according to the capacities of the unlearned, and so should not be understood as being on the same level as the scientific writings of the learned, Calvin also employs the distinction between proximate and ultimate causality to explain why the investigations of the learned do not conflict Scripture. . . . (Randall C. Zachman, "John Calvin As Teacher, Pastor, And Theologian: The Shape of His Writings and Thought," 123-24)</em><br /><br /><strong>PuritanReformed</strong>,<br /><br />I quoted this at length just so you could get the context of Zachman's point. And then to my point in re. to Keller; really it is toward the end of the quote above that I think Keller's <em>approach</em> fits into how he is trying to articulate his points. I.e. He seems to be engaging a bit of a <em>via media</em> (middle way) between "Calvin's" <em>learned</em> and <em>unlearned</em>. Bearing in mind that Calvin believed that Bible study and the "Natural Sciences" are distinct, nevertheless related entities. It seems to me that Keller is drawing off of this <em>Calvinian</em> tradition or line of inquiry. That's all I was saying. I wasn't saying anything about Calvin's view of the literal days.<br /><br /><em>~Bobby</em><br /><br />PS. I'm not an advocate for BioLogos, at all; just to be clear.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-36005400320652828742010-09-09T22:39:56.793-07:002010-09-09T22:39:56.793-07:00Quote cont.
As his discussion of astronomy indica...<strong>Quote cont.</strong><br /><br /><em>As his discussion of astronomy indicates, Calvin was concerned that the true and genuine meaning of Scripture not conflict with the understanding of the world and human nature developed by the liberal sciences. Because he was convinced that the Scripture was a book for the unlearned, he did not expect to find in Scripture scientific accounts of the nature of the world, for he was convinced that these could be found only in the writings of the learned. Thus, when Scripture states that there are waters above the heavens, Calvin knows that his learned peers will find this contrary to the way they have come to understand the universe.<br /><br /><strong>For, to my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing here is treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. Here the Spirit of God would teach all men without exception; and therefore what Gregory declares falsely and in vain respecting statues and pictures is truly applicable to the history of creation, that it is the book of the unlearned. [Calvin's Comm. on Gen. 1:6]</strong><br /><br />Beyond reminding his readers that Scripture was written according to the capacities of the unlearned, and so should not be understood as being on the same level as the scientific writings of the learned, Calvin also employs the distinction between proximate and ultimate causality to explain why the investigations of the learned do not conflict Scripture. . . . (Randall C. Zachman, "John Calvin As Teacher, Pastor, And Theologian: The Shape of His Writings and Thought," 123-24)</em><br /><br /><strong>PuritanReformed</strong>,<br /><br />I quoted this at length just so you could get the context of Zachman's point. And then to my point in re. to Keller; really it is toward the end of the quote above that I think Keller's <em>approach</em> fits into how he is trying to articulate his points. I.e. He seems to be engaging a bit of a <em>via media</em> (middle way) between "Calvin's" <em>learned</em> and <em>unlearned</em>. Bearing in mind that Calvin believed that Bible study and the "Natural Sciences" are distinct, nevertheless related entities. It seems to me that Keller is drawing off of this <em>Calvinian</em> tradition or line of inquiry. That's all I was saying. I wasn't saying anything about Calvin's view of the literal days.<br /><br /><em>~Bobby</em><br /><br />PS. I'm not an advocate for BioLogos, at all; just to be clear.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-78740839453987500532010-09-09T22:25:53.827-07:002010-09-09T22:25:53.827-07:00DJP,
Your response is funny (it made me laugh :-)...<strong>DJP</strong>,<br /><br />Your response is funny (it made me laugh :-).<br /><br /><strong>PuritanReformed</strong>,<br /><br />Let me just quote Calvin scholar, Randall Zachman to clarify what I was getting at (and then see what you think):<br /><br /><em>. . . Calvin . . . was a keen student of astronomy, the study of which he considered to be commended by God. <strong>For astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God." [Calvin's Comm. on Gen. 1:16]</strong> However, precisely because of his studies, Calvin was aware that the description of the universe given by astonomers is not the same as the depiction of the universe given in Scripture, as in the creation of the greater and lesser light in Gen. 1:16.<br /><br /><strong>First, he assigns a place in the expanse of heavens to planets and stars, but astronomers make a distinction of spheres, and at the same time, teach that the fixed stars have their proper place in the firmament. Moses makes two great luminaries; but astronomers prove, by conclusive reasons, that the star of Saturn, which, on account of its great distance, appears least of all, is greater than the moon. [Calvin's Comm. on Gen. 1:16]</strong><br /><br />To avoid an unnecessary conflict between the free investigation of the universe by astronomy and the truth of Scripture, Calvin employs his understanding of the accommodated nature of Scripture, which describes the world from the point of view of a person standing in a field at night, and hence does not claim to be science.<br /><br /><strong>Here lies the difference; Moses wrote in a popular style things which, without instruction, all ordinary persons endued with common sense are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. . . . Nor did Moses truly wish to withdraw us from this pursuit in omitting such things as are peculiar to this art; but because he was ordained a teacher as well of the unlearned and rude as of the learned, he could not otherwise fulfill his office than by descending to this grosser method of instruction. [Calvin's Comm. on Gen. 1:16]</strong></em>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-25354747454822955172010-09-09T17:45:44.107-07:002010-09-09T17:45:44.107-07:00Oh, boy.Oh, boy.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-39847491293073551132010-09-09T17:41:00.449-07:002010-09-09T17:41:00.449-07:00@Bobby:
that is a miscitation of Calvin's wri...@Bobby:<br /><br />that is a miscitation of Calvin's writings. Calin did not advocate for figurative creation days. It simply astonishes me when the Biologos folks wrote that. Do they think that we cannot READ Calvin's commentaries in context?Daniel Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-70102482447411584442010-09-09T17:34:42.366-07:002010-09-09T17:34:42.366-07:00I don't think Keller is outside the boundaries...I don't think Keller is outside the boundaries of the Christian <em>tradition</em> on this. Just see Calvin in his commentary on Genesis on how he sees the relation of the "text of Scripture" and science. I think Keller is actually operating in a very <em>Calvinian</em> mode.<br /><br /><em>~Bobby</em>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-91804771015863887802010-09-09T10:33:54.997-07:002010-09-09T10:33:54.997-07:00Yeah, you have. And to the rest, done.
This line ...Yeah, you have. And to the rest, done.<br /><br />This line of discussion is also done.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-72156232670679322482010-09-09T07:42:36.730-07:002010-09-09T07:42:36.730-07:00Dan - to my recollection, I have never complained ...Dan - to my recollection, I have never complained that no one is answering my questions. I have expressed an opinion which doesn't happen to coincide with yours, and it annoys you. <br /><br />There is an old saying in business management that observes "feedback is a gift." If your reaction to suggestions of how to turn fewer people off with invective is merely defensive, then you are cheating yourself of any benefit - but you can do that of course, while bearing the consequences. I have read enough to know I am not the only one who has made legitimate suggestions along these lines, so I still think you would benefit by considering what I and others have said. But that's up to you. Thanks.Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-65516847939740641362010-09-09T07:08:25.057-07:002010-09-09T07:08:25.057-07:00Good post Frank. Ahead of the curve as usual.
CMI...Good post Frank. Ahead of the curve as usual.<br /><br />CMI only put up there response today.<br />http://creation.com/timothy-keller-responseJames Joycehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15983848193844746369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-85817027265022166902010-09-09T06:52:58.546-07:002010-09-09T06:52:58.546-07:00Oh, goodness, LET IT GO, Stratagem. You're li...Oh, goodness, LET IT GO, Stratagem. You're like a guy with fifty great songs who won't stop singing the one lone stinker.<br /><br />Yep, one of our goals is to persuade. However, one of our goals <i>is not</i> to have anyone say "Gee, I have a question," to answer that question, then have the same person say, "Gee, how come nobody ever answers my question?" over and over. Nor are we moved when that same person (you) plays the "poor me" that he's a "poor me" because someone points out that he's playing a "poor me."<br /><br />I am telling you, dude: learn to be content with having repeated your same 1 or 2 points over and over again as if for the first time. They're out there, in The Intrawebs. All may read them. That can be your legacy, if that's what you want.<br /><br />You have our permission not to accept the answers to your question. You do not have our permission to keep pretending they haven't been answered, or that everyone's mean (see "poor me" above) for pointing that out.<br /><br />I said at the outset, don't do this again. You did it again. Great job. Now let it go.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-14882868646263408462010-09-09T06:23:41.910-07:002010-09-09T06:23:41.910-07:00Actually, I have listened and am listening to all ...Actually, I have listened and am listening to all the "answers" given to me - I just haven't come to the same conclusions as you all, just yet. Maybe I will. I am about to listen to a teaching by John MacArthur on the "six days" subject, as an example. <br /><br />As an aside, I assume one of the goals of the Pyro team is to be persuasive and not just accumulate kudos and agreeable comments? If so, then I think a realization that to listen and yet not agree, is possible, would be constructive. A lot of people come on here trolling, I realize, and they do have no intention of thinking things through, but that's not true of everyone who comes here with a contrary position. A lot of us are coming here struggling with making up our minds on things that (to me at least) may not be as Biblically clear as some maintain. I have no issue with someone telling me they don't agree with me, but the snide ad hominems about "poor me" and so on simply do nothing but stifle any real communication beyond the "great job, you're SO right" types of comments. And they detract, in my opinion, from the really meaty, thought-provoking content available at this website. Thank you.Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-57272566679688357502010-09-09T05:55:49.003-07:002010-09-09T05:55:49.003-07:00All this talk (OK there's not been a lot, but ...All this talk (OK there's not been a lot, but it always come up with this topic), about understanding Ancient Near Eastern Literature, in order to understand Genesis...<br /><br />Where does that end? Do we need to understand all the ancient pagan versions of history and poetry and wisdom lit and prophecy and apocalyptic and gospel and personal letter etc etc etc, in order to understand the whole bible?<br /><br />May McLaren has a point...maybe we do need and English Lit major to explain the bible to us. It's clearly too complicated for anyone to understand by simply studying the text.<br /><br />Why can Genesis not simply be Genesis regardless of how Gigamesh wrote his made up stories of how the world began.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-74439488506010483092010-09-09T04:26:27.269-07:002010-09-09T04:26:27.269-07:00Shawn - I have seen both you and Dan tout your opi...Shawn - <i>I have seen both you and Dan tout your opinions, but have not seen you engage the actual text</i><br /><br />Trying to understand this remark. Is this the first and only post you've read on this blog?DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-60336079973888119362010-09-09T00:13:25.414-07:002010-09-09T00:13:25.414-07:00It seems clear to me that the primary flaw in Kell...It seems clear to me that the primary flaw in Keller's argument is his presupposition that the scientific case for macro-evolutionary processes is so incontrovertible as to REQUIRE Christians to "reconcile" it with Scripture. While he makes a half-hearted attempt to acknowledge the responsibility of the pastor to "read the works of scientists", it is obvious that he has committed an egregious pastoral error in discounting (or completely missing) the substantial body of scientific research that calls much of macro-evolutionary theory into question. Why are we SO willing to cede this crucial ground to evolutionists at just the point in history when recent advances in bio-chemistry and genetic research (among other disciplines) are beginning to highlight the infinitesimally small probability "evolutionary biological processes" could have EVER resulted in genetically viable forms of biological life? I would suggest that Keller open his mind and at least consider the possibility that he may be wasting his time trying to reconcile Biblical fact with scientific fiction. Keller's true pastoral dilemma may be the danger he is exposing Christ's flock to in legitimizing evolution baselessly and causing confusion and division amongst the people of God. I wish Keller would expend as much effort informing himself on the current debate in the scientific community as he does creating the sort of hermeneutical legerdemain evident in his article.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04792802565694793811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-86260199678359101352010-09-08T23:58:57.820-07:002010-09-08T23:58:57.820-07:00I think your use of Exod 20 is interesting. "...I think your use of Exod 20 is interesting. "God's rest is the exact same as man's rest." But then Heb 3-4 says that those who enter God's rest enter by obedience...for eternity (at least the natural inference from the passage is that it is an indeterminate amount of time). Also I don't think you are taking Gen 1-2:3 "literally." I have yet to see a thorough exegesis of the passage that deals with the issues from both sides. I have seen both you and Dan tout your opinions, but have not seen you engage the actual text. To help with this I might recommend a couple of books: Henri Blocher <i>In the Beginning</i> and John H. Walton <i>The Lost World of Genesis 1</i> (Also note his Genesis commentary in the NIVAC series: some of the best stuff I have read on Genesis). After spending lots of time trying to better enter the world of the bible through careful exegesis and broad reading of ancient Near Eastern literature, I don't think an Israelite sitting on the banks of the Jordan saying: "You know, I think Ken Ham is right. He is asking all the right questions of the text. And this first part of the book IS all about how to make a world."Shawn Virgil Goodwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03273814575178508044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-3098738737379567782010-09-08T21:39:34.578-07:002010-09-08T21:39:34.578-07:00Jeepers! ...when I come on here and read these exc...Jeepers! ...when I come on here and read these exchanges, <i>boy, does I gets tempted</i> to renounce all pretense of personal intelligence.<br /><br />(Or perhaps life these days has just been too busy for me to think as straight as all you brainiacs.)<br /><br />Keep up the dialog, gents! (c:IB Dubbyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14110161040854928853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-46998488087496628222010-09-08T20:35:13.873-07:002010-09-08T20:35:13.873-07:00Frank
I won't disagree with your or Keller th...Frank<br /><br />I won't disagree with your or Keller that the average person struggles most with questions 1-3. I guess my issue is one of logical foundations: had he dealt with question #4, even though it's not one that comes to the mind of most people, would he not have had an "easier" time, if he were consistent, in answering Qs 1-3 because the answer to those questions are rooted in the answer to Q 4?<br /><br />Also, I don't quite catch the point you're making about Q4 being for people of faith with apologetical intetions. I have a hunch that my comment above must be primae facie evidence that I am one of those with faith and apologetic intentions. However, I just can't seem to limit my understanding to what you are alluding to. <br /><br />Sorry to make you do extra duty. Maybe it's because it's late.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17726213381595650460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-29792841666331616472010-09-08T20:23:49.382-07:002010-09-08T20:23:49.382-07:00Stratagem:
Dan's right, and you're just n...Stratagem:<br /><br />Dan's right, and you're just not really listening to the many kinds and types of answers being given to you.<br /><br />Next.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.com