CHAPTER FOUR
The Depth,
the Glory and the Grandeur

 

Not very long ago, there came the privilege of discussing some basic topics concerning the Creator of your life and the wonder of it, with a young person in the Pacific region. Truly the internet makes the world like a back-yard - though a particularly attractive one, if the imagination is allowed to rove. It is good at such times to share something of the scenery, the life and the joys of the place.

For now, however, it seems best to share part of the correspondence from this side only, in case it is of help to any, and to stimulate your imaginations and thoughts, as you consider the way for your life. It is - when one is young - sometimes odd that this fact, that one has only one life and that it turns old in a while and is up for review, may not occur forcibly to the mind. Let us then consider the ways of life a little, as was done in response to questions about underlying principles, about creation and evolution, about former times and these, approaches to the Bible and 'modern science' and how they relate. Slight changes have been made, with a few expansions, partly because this is not now a text-only file.
 
 

Knowing your Creator when Young

There are senses in which, if you do not know your own Creator, you have everything to learn. In a way, it is like just starting the computer. It is not that you know nothing beforehand, but that a new sphere of operations arises, with its own demands and provisions. It is like this except - that this world is directly alive to the power of God, where is to be found the knowledge of God, both His wonder and His glory. In another way, it is like an orphan being introduced to his parents - when they are 'discovered' - so changing his state... for the first time. If in addition he/she were alienated from their memory before the discovery, then the change is yet greater.

When however it is the Creator of the power to know itself, who is the One to whom we come for the first time, not merely considering His office or His works, then the transformation is greater yet again. It is more like a man dying of thirst meeting the darting mountain stream in full waterfall display; or a blind man seeing, with sight restored for the first time, seeing in its splendour a sunset of artistic exploitation and wonder: but rather, it is rather like someone blind who did not know this was the case, or that sight existed, being awakened.

The Third Letter, which we take first....

Excerpts are from the reply given to the original enquirer - except that we have now had opportunity to extend these, and update them somewhat, for later readers. "You" refers to the Pacific enquirer.

He queried whether there was some harmony, some underlying principle or procedure which could unite former times with these, former theories with present ones, allow for people doing earlier what now they find different. Was there a basis for the earlier creationist and the current proponent of organic evolution, was there in method some common element? This was the thrust of the query, along with a touch of Hindu interest, perhaps drawn by some kind of "process" and some kind of "unity" which is to be "thought" in some unknown way. IS it unknown? THERE is the query. Since there are rather a lot of people in the Pacific region of the world, and the thrust is on the reply, there is no breach of privacy. There may however be empathy on the part of some, who would share in the reply. It follows, in its extended form.
 
 

FROM THE REPLY:

Now we can look at some of the matters you raise.

·  1. You have opened up some interesting areas. IS there a fundamental principle underlying the mental, intellectual, discursive work of all scholars ? If so WHAT is it ?

·  Actually, what underlies and overlies them all, is their Creator who gave them the power to know anything at all, and in Himself alone gives the power to know as truth and not as reaction; through which alone is any power to compare or discuss anything in reality - all theories included. That is why Chapter 1 of the trilogy, The Shadow of a Mighty Rock (SMR), especially the first 70 pages is so important as a prelude to such discussion.

·  I hope you can find time to read this section of SMR, perhaps printing it off. A substantial part of the rest of this trilogy is an indication in very numerous fields of endless and uninterrupted verifications. After all, if God said it, it should show it.

·  These later chapters show that this is entirely so; and that the tests are most stringent; and that the confirmations of the Bible are not merely adequate, but exuberant with that vitality which is recognisable as life, not dreams. It as if you look for a loaf of bread, and find a backery, for a glass of water and find a reservoir. That in itself is yet a further verification which one finds, in overview, in one place only: the Bible.

·  2. We shall, then, assume this Ch. 1 material, in The Shadow of a Mighty Rock, is in view. Now when someone makes assumptions that all things created themselves, or that 'nothing' created them (on that see my Ch. 7, Models and Marvels, in That Magnificent Rock - - this is a simple contradiction in terms; and as I would put it, If you contradict yourself, there is no need for anyone else to do it), reason is evacuated. Here in our State, Paul Davies is talking this way, while admitting as a physicist that a beginning for the universe is indicated.

·  In reality, of course, to create oneself, one has to be there to do it; in which case it is not creation: one is there already. So for whatever else that does not attest itself to be self-sufficient, total means are needed for it and before it.

·  3. The causal basis then ? 'NOTHING' simply will not do (see also Barbs, Arrows and Balms, Item 29); something adequate is required, as always both in science and any logic which is not simply self-contradictory, denying what it uses as it speaks! Giving 'reasons' in the effort to show why causation is not valid would, similarly, be using what you reject, and hence simple self-contradiction.

·  If reason is evacuated in this, then the system of thought is contrary to itself, and has no validity. If however reason is followed, as shown in the Ch.1 of SMR, noted above, then with rigorous finality, God is indicated: the God of the Bible. What then did these two scientists, one of whom was also a preacher, have in common ? A knowledge of many facts, although we must note that a 'fact' as truth is not possible without God, merely a convenient reaction assessment. Both knew plenty of these. They wanted more. Yes that seems to be in common.

·  4. Now you mentioned two people for comparison in their zeal, search for truth and so on: Jonathan Edwards, the renowned preacher in the 1700's in the U.S., one who was also deeply at work in physics; and on the other hand, a modern exponent of organic evolution. He might not normally be regarded as a preacher, but anyone who pushes something with constant force and zeal, and seeks to make others follow this way, may be called a preacher.

·  Of course, there are good and bad preachers, as there are doctors; and some are right in their pronouncements, as are some teachers. But the activity is sometimes taken up by people in science, engineering, geology, astronomy or biology, and the office is quite the same. People may preach what is true, demonstrably true, or demonstrably false. The APPROACH of zestful and vocal desire to bring others to the Way, makes it preaching.

·  Very well: you had two preachers, one a Minister in the 18^th century, famous for bringing people to repentance towards God in Christ, the other a contemporary, notable for doing the opposite.

·  Having identified these two exponents, you thought a comparison might prove fruitful, one for one age, one for another. This seemed possibly to allow some measure of underlying identity of action, which might be discerned in BOTH, you thought.

Each sought to find what was an underlying 'principle' - or 'law' ? But what 'principle' or 'law' has the power to make ? A principle does not create the universe by whatever means. A principle is a descriptive title for the procedure of what is operative. But what of the thing itself which operates ? What of the power ? What of its nature ? A force, after all, is what gives acceleration to matter; and if we mean more, we must find out what is the NATURE of this 'more', of what HAS this force. Evidentially, matter lacks the power to make matter, being merely the repository of laws and procedures, in terms of investigation (cf. SMR pp. 159, 1-50, 137, 315B-316A, 422Eff., Ch.10 That Magnificent Rock (TMR) Chs. 1,8).

What then makes the laws which this, matter, possesses ? The laws cannot do it, for these are merely descriptive titles of what is happening. What is their source ? Why does it happen ? What constrains it so that laws are applicable ? Clearly chaos does not make law, for chaos is merely a term designating its absence. Law in matter, not constructed by matter, requires an immaterial maker of law, or the surrender of discussion. This is because causality is inherent in all thought and language; and if one is to give reason, for example for not believing in reason, then one is invalid at the start, for reason is dismissed, then used, in a vacillatory and self-contradictory fashion more interesting psychologically than logically!

·  5. What then of your aim to show a correlation between science and religion ? It is a good one in itself. It depends on how it is handled. But we shall revert to this.

·  Perhaps therefore instead we might wonder whether scientific method underlay both these men, these 'preachers' in the scientific part of their work ? But as shown in an earlier letter, and seen in SMR Chs.1,3, 5,10, any materialistic, naturalistic approach to what is here before us and viewable, is not following scientific method. Perhaps parts of scientific method underlay their approach at that level ? Certainly, the parts about gathering information concerning procedures discernible, and considering correlations is relevant to any enquiry ... but the part about verification, to the required level of hypothesis presented, this is not found in the modern science-preacher you mention at the necessary level.

·  The hypothesis that what we have and can see and touch, invented itself, slowly or speedily, or that its kind of thing did it, lacks any verification of any kind whatsoever. The precise opposite is what is met with monotonous consistency (see A and F Schools, in A Spiritual Potpourri, for example, and TMR Ch.1). If you want it in some detail like a lecture, see Ch. 1 of That Magnificent Rock. See also SMR pp. 145-151, then on to 162 for a brief summary.

·  The hypothesis, likewise, that ONLY what we can touch and feel and so on, is relevant is pathetic: the hypothesis itself cannot be measured or touched, and is itself in immediate violation of any such nonsensical principle. The idea that ONLY what we describe is relevant is equally nonsensical, because THAT hypothesis is not description, but prescription, not finding what is there but TELLING what we OUGHT not to do. All such things are merely red herrings, clever little ruses. The facts must be faced: all of them. For that SMR pp. 329ff., and 315A-316G, 348ff., and 332E-H are useful.

·  6. Now of course, as to your 18^th century exhibit, or preacher whose way you were investigating in order to compare it with that of your modern science-preacher,: there are two notable people by the name of Jonathan Edwards, father and son, both famous, both living before Darwin for example published. One died in 1758, the other in 1801. They assuredly did not follow the writings not yet made, though ideas of evolution of this kind or that were present with the Greeks, often hilariously ridiculous, as indeed are all of them which try to turn children into mothers, and results into causes, by the flick of the switch of imagination in the dark. The Greeks used to try out fire, or water, or air, or change, or stability - anything at all, seeking to homogenise everything in some way into little pockets of what we find, like someone trying to find out - to use a relevant illustration, whether the human body is REALLY all a matter of the ankle and its developments, or of the neck.

·  It is so childish as to be ludicrous, but perfectly understandable as a sort of reductio ad absurdum, a manifestation of false bases to thought, when people do not realise that the designs and totalities come from what is competent to compose them. It really is most instructive to see these tormented and twisted oddities, which after all, are not different in kind from what Jeremiah rightly denounces for Israel's wanderings in his own day (Jeremiah 2:26ff, with 2:13ff.). Compare SMR pp. 81ff.,
92ff..

·  To revert, then, to Jonathan Edwards, father and son. Normally, I think, further, we would be thinking of the senior one, whose sermons you note. What did he hold on this topic of
creation ? How did this compare with that archetype, Darwin, in his views and method ? That seems to be your underlying question.

·  Simple fiat creation (means - let it be done, from a competent worker! ) is in view, on the one hand; versus - on the other - an unknown beginning (such as Darwin vaguely drifted about in formulating), and an unknown ground for making the things which are to survive; with unknown evidence for the unknown process by which the unknowable results are to be made. The extrapolation is not commendable scientifically.

·  Quite simply, Darwin and Edwards both sought some understanding about what happens, and one contrary to scientific method (Darwin) made assumptions (as in palaeontology) where he admitted the facts did not warrant his view, but embarrassed it, while the other, Edwards who also had some scientific note, did not act in this way. {Said Darwin on palaeontology:

·       "... intermediate links ? Geology assuredly does NOT reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the MOST OBVIOUS AND SERIOUS OBJECTION which can be urged against the theory " - emphasis added, Parker, "Creation: The Facts of Life", p. 94. For further on this, consult earlier letters sent.}

·  In fact, as we read in the work, "The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation" (William Cunningham, 1982, republished Banner of Truth Trust, 1967 - p. 490), Jonathan Edwards was once asked if he could subscribe the Westminster Confession, and replied with pleasure that he did so to the substance of its teaching. One of its teachings, its Chapter 4, is that God created out of nothing, man in particular being a creation, and that he gave an immortal soul to man so created, and that further, man fell to where he is through voluntary sin. There is thus an infinite difference between the two on the topic of creation, correlative to scientific method on the one hand, and to the verificatory substance of the Bible. One rejected both; the other conformed to each.

·  7. Let us then revert to the thought of similarity, correlativity between science and religion. By all means: Biblical religion REQUIRES (as shown in quotations earlier given) TESTING, VERIFICATION. God in Isaiah evidences disgust at FAILURE to compare His words with all others, as to their continual and irresistible accuracy in fact, in prediction, in retrodiction. Science would do well to follow such precepts, and to examine the sort of thing which has this as a feature; and many scientists do. {The list of eminent and indeed markedly innovative scientists who are creationists is long; and after all, Darwin did not invent evolution as a philosophy. John Morris' book, "Men of Science, Men of God", is useful here.}

·  Science does equally well to consider what testable propositions have remained intact, even concerning the physical level (as shown in my first letter with its Web references), for thousands of years; and to consider WHY this should be so, when so many propositions derived by other means last just decades. The source in view ? The Bible.

·  What then ? Underlying possibilities for science and religion both ? yes, this: willingness to observe what happens, to codify and correlate, to formulate hypothesis as to why it does this, and to verify such hypotheses quite ruthlessly, so that nothing is exempted, no 'concessions' are made. If something is anti-verified, like organic evolution and gradualism, so be it. Drop it. If evidence arises, evaluate it, and formulate an explanation and then test that. BOTH are susceptible to this approach: GOD in the BIBLE INSISTING that test be made. In I Thessalonians it says: TEST ALL THINGS. TESTS IN THE BIBLE AND IN 'NATURE', STRINGENTLY APPLIED, LEAD TO RESULTS NOT MERELY HARMONIUS BUT AT THE RESPECTIVE LEVELS OF 'UTTERANCE' - IDENTICAL.

As to test, I shall share just a little here. One of the interesting things Denton makes clear is that NOT ONLY is there an irrepressible leap from design type to design type observationally and palaeontologically, but the same occurs in the appearances of codified sequences in proteins: the protein amino-acid sequences. These are distinct, distinctive, individual, non-sequential from one kind to another (Denton, op.cit. pp.289-290).Actually, the same is true in languages: there is no sequence from 'primitive' to modern in terms of complexity being gained; and the same again is found in cells themselves, the most simple being all but incredibly complex and most challenging indeed to comprehend fully, when you go to the DNA! (SMR 1031C, 13ff., 114ff., 120). We shall pursue the cell case shortly.

Instead of unspeakable divergence from hypothesis, for evolution the case, here we have eloquent convergence and confirmation Biblically. Its many statements and the arrangements actually discovered in the sphere of natural objects are like mirror images, the one of the speaker, the other of the spoken. The mode and the simple datum that "it is there" and is not progressing, are in refined agreement.

For the rest, the death of the gradualistic, naturalistic evolutionary hypothesis is dealt with in more detail in SMR pp. 209-211. Anti-verification is fatal in such cases; and asking MORE in terms of suddenness speaks less of science and more of miracle: which of course is precisely what the Bible indicates as fact. But let us revert to Denton's findings.

So too is the case, he says, in cells: the simplest cell is enormously sophisticated there is, he points out, nothing remotely like evolution in the whole universe of cells, any more than in that of code-directed sequences, or of the substantial exhibits of different design types. Discontinuity is the evidence. This, says Denton, is the empirical reality available to observation.

You will see some reference to this in SMR pp. 1031C, 120-121; and to the mammalian explosion resembling the Cambrian one (on current geological approaches) on p. 236 (cf. p. 203 summary and methodological aspect).

The information correlatives of these things, the data, the language, the concepts inherent in the commnands, via code, these are prodigious, and if they now thought to 'arrive' with explosive suddenness, then not merely are plans needed, but power in a cohesive and minutely appropriate form to implement those plans, which then as now, do not act by magic, but by cause, contrivance, sophisticated assembly-line techniques. Specification codes, command codes, executive codes in robust multitudinous marvels are just a biological way of saying it. It mirrors: 'God said and it was done'.

You cannot HEAR the command at this distance; you can however see its symbolic significations. In such a field, no more intimately precise verification (for that is this area) could be seen.

·  8. WHEN the test is made there is no difficulty in the comparison. Verification for creation by direction of what is sufficient, the One who is sufficient (SMR Ch.1) is available consistently. Language, order, contrivance, imaginative correlations, synthesis of order and energy provisions, code and maintenance procedures, conserving and proliferating structures, editing and conserving constraints, packaging for preservation and for the proliferating new cells, all is needed, and needed at once on this basis. THAT simply happens to be PRECISELY and in DETAIL JUST WHAT the Bible stated.

·  Evolution did not occur; is not occurring. Gradualism rejects facts. Magic rejects logical principle. Creation however did occur, and is not doing so now. As with Jesus Christ the man, there is simply no comparison in power, predicted events, performance, plan, purpose, age-old plan revealed in advance and so forth. See Ch. 6 SMR.

As God puts it in Jeremiah 23:28, concerning His words and 'competition':

"What is chaff to the wheat ?"

 

·  9. Now as to Hinduism, a point that appears to interest you: that or point concerning it, is discussed in The Shadow of a Mighty Rock (SMR) on pp. 48-49,995-1008, 1012-1014, with relevant principles in view on pp. 269-332. It has of course many 'gods', which is an impossible situation at this level, as shown in pp. 1-70 and elsewhere (SMR): they are busily evolving into this or that, and in their quarrels they certainly cannot speak with authority of what is.

·  In this religion, components of what is seen are set in a literary format, and what is the declaration of the Creator of all ? of the One who is over all and above all and on whom all is founded and by whom all is maintained (as shown op.cit.) ? Why, He is not around with speech. Test is not around. That is the situation there. Verifiability is not around. Logical conformity to the requirements of reason is not around. It does not help in any correlation with science therefore; or with logic: and as to the case without logic ? we have already looked at that. Philosophical errors in view in that religion are looked at in Ch. 3 SMR, and in Ch.10.

 

·  10. Now we come to your point: "Science and religion are merely mediums for ideas." By what means, however, do we get THAT idea ? Is this view found then by science - as a medium for
ideas ? or is it by religion, allegedly a medium for ideas ? If they are MERELY media for ideas, how do you get the truth with which to say that this is so ? From 'mere' media ? But then, by your own definition, they could not produce it, being a medium only... Of course, culture merely is a shroud around what is being produced, and people have to produce it, or find it from God Himself (what I call "meta-religion" - see A Spiritual Potpourri, Ch. 15, *1. See also Barbs, Arrows and Balms Item 7, Can You Be Absolutely Sure? ).

·  If, however, culture is the determinant of truth, what is the determinant of culture ? If people are the determinant of culture, what is the determinant of people ? If people have the truth, why not admit it: but where did they get it from ? If however they do not as such have the truth, neither does culture. Similarly, if all things are relative, flowing uncertainly through media, how do you know that THIS is absolutely sure, how COULD you, without absolute contradiction.

·  Hence the assumption in this statement is self-contradictory and not to be bought. You have to transcend it, to say it as truth. IT ASSUMES A SOURCE OF TRUTH IN RELEGATING SOURCES. But how can you do this, except the truth be there with which to say it ? Absolute truth PLUS access to it is necessary to exist if one is to make such assertions; and if one does nevertheless do so, logically it is then on THAT basis. However, if that be so, then all is NOT relative, but as absolute truth directs.

 

·  11. Actually, you would do better to say this: scientific method gives an ordered way of securing operational knowledge, making hypotheses, testing them and adjusting the hypothesis constantly towards conformity to observation, correlation with other such hypotheses, and so on. It cannot by itself give the truth as such, but it can constantly conform to the criteria in its field.

·  Science and religion can both be admitted to the field so treated, and the results should conscientiously be considered. When this is done, creation is indicated, and a creator should thereupon be sought in terms of this evidence. This is the logical and evidential reality shown in our Web pages.

·  Also, the underlying principles of thought should be considered, so that contradictory procedures are not used, self-defeatingly. Hence when logic is followed (Ch 1 SMR e.g.), the evidenced reality of God is met by the logical necessity; and when science is followed within the creation, the same basic reality of a deposit of knowledge and intelligence and form and structure, with mobilities evidentially limited, is found. It is soberly amusing to watch Sir Fred Hoyle, one of the century's most notable Cambridge scientists, stressing this. To that extent, his scientific methodology was good. The ULTIMATE source of this too, is needed.

These things cohere, correlate, are testable, verifiable. If reason is followed, only one result is obtainable. If reason is neglected, in a reasoned exercise, this is self-contradiction, a contradiction in terms, unsystematic thought. If then it is followed, the one underlying reality is God; and the question is simply this: has the evidence been acknowledged or not ?

If then the 'books' of nature and of God are of one disposition, then you have not so much an underlying as an overlying fact. The attestation in words and that in deeds, these act as one. THERE IS YOUR ONENESS.

The human race also is one, a conscious correlative, a creation; He is another: a consciousness imparting Creator. Companionship with God is another step; and through that there is another division:

·  a) Creator,

·  b) creature,

·  c) co-operative creation. All is OF one, all are diverse kinds; some are WITH One. (See Also SMR pp. 329-332H, 315C-316G.)

 

·  12. Now we come to your ideas that the view of the modern scientist you note, is based on logic, Edwards on faith.

In the ways shown, it would seem better to say this: naturalistic evolutionism does not achieve scientific validation, so that it is not founded on scientific method; nor does logic support it. It is founded on faith contrary to factual evidence. Edwards' views were likewise founded on faith constrained by factual evidence; but not limited to that. They accorded in this field with logic, evidence and testimony from the two sources, the deeds, the universe, and the words, the Bible, each of which accorded with the other.

When

·  a) the religious testable material is uniquely vindicated (see e.g.Ch. 8 on prophecy, and Ch.9, as well as foregoing considerations) and

·  b) it is wholly in concord with the evidential realities tested as to natural procedures,

then though faith is indeed still required, since to know God is to know the invisible (Hebrews 11:1-3); it is a wholly logical faith.

 

·  13. For my part, I should go further. Reason will never make anyone come to God (cf. Ephesians 4:180-19). It can only show the illogical character of any failure to recognise His power, His position and His word (though of course this can have ramifying effects!). A person can then say: O.K., but I do not want Him. The reason ? It could be that the person feels ...

·  a) too important

·  b) too needy of pleasures as desired or

·  c) in need of name or fame, or being AUTONOMOUS or whatever (not that that can be done, death being so difficult, and birth not of any choice, but some like to feel like that). For that reason, 'I do not have faith', someone might say.

Surely this is so. But then, that is not a LOGICAL rejection, but a PERSONAL one. (Cf. Questions and Answers 1, Barbs, Arrows and Balms, Item 14, for dialogues on this area: it is of the most fundamental importance.) As indicated with reason in SMR, not only is God a logical option, He is the logical necessity; and in particular, not some culturally conditioned stab at what 'god' may be, but some evidential and reasoned necessity that He is there and operative, whether we like it or not; and has spoken in one distinct place as becomes one distinct being. Similarly, the code language in 'Nature' is, in precise conformity with all this, JUST ONE! You will perceive this in terms of 'chaos' on the one hand, and The Almighty SPOKE and it was DONE, as the Bible expresses it, on the other. ONE form, formula, format, methodology involving command, code, conceptually intertwining co-ordinated and co-operative constructions is of course to be expected from one mind making with supreme magnificence of intelligence, many things; but not from the mindless exponent of nothing. As noted in Barbs, Arrows and Balms, in some detail, "Nothing Doing from Nothing". In more formal manner, it is likewise shown in That Magnificent Rock, Ch.7.

Culture then becomes simply the permutations and combinations, expression socially or personally of the options which freedom (made by God - see Predestination and Freewill, Part 1, and SMR Ch.5 and Ch.3). confers on this human race: and this whether from the private thought world, or where it is a social chatter matter, an interactive format.

 

·  14. Biblically, and in terms of Jesus Christ, the problem is sin; the unifying is not absent but the willingness for it, frequently is. Diversifying from the plan, program, pattern and personal expression of God leads to disaster. Liberty becomes licence, freedom autonomy and autonomy (as desired) fiction. Fiction does not work.

·  The static is sin; the deliverance is salvation, the means for it, justice, provided through mercy. The plan, announced thousands of years ago and fulfilled by Jesus Christ at the date predicted, is this: His life is made a sacrifice for the life of each who receives it for meeting justice; and when this is accepted by faith, then the LIFE is regenerated, through constructive mercy. The sin is forgiven. (Hebrews 8:12, II Corinthians 5:19-21, Galatians 3:10-13, I Peter 2:22-24).

·  It is thus that the static is quieted. Correlation on the grandest scale at last arrives: that with God. He does not dither. He is very direct. He does not reject: He who comes to Me shall not be cast out, said Jesus Christ. Some tend to treat Him as a plaything (here I am, no I'm not -I think I'll come and receive you... No I won't!); but it is a very dangerous game, as one sees when looking at the end of Matthew 7 - for example in verses 21-23. Some like to laugh at God, but as Psalm 2 shows, this can backfire.

·  The ultimate unity between man and God is that of someone made capable of fellowship with Him, actually achieving this. And how ? By the method proposed by the Creator in the attested book. It cannot be altered any more than the laws of physics - and indeed, less than these, can it change. Men may change, but what God says has His imprimatur. Your impression of a book may grow or change; but the author has actually WRITTEN IT.

·  The Gospel or good news from God concerning what is His way for a race in our own situation, one which He made: it is simple, but profound. (See The Everlasting Gospel, in Barbs, Arrows and Balms.) Its basis is uttered, not conjectured. Thus John 3:15-18, 8:58,10:9,27-28, Galatians 1:6-9, 3:10-13, II Corinthians 5:17-21, Isaiah 52:7-53:12 all give a straightforward expression of it, and emphasis is laid on its incorrigibility, intransigeance if you like, sovereign disposition and deposition from the Almighty.

·  When He is received as required, the life is then nourished as is the mind, and the spirit.{For more, and more attestation on this topic, see "That Magnificent Rock" on our Web Page, Chapters 2 and 3; and SMR pp. 520-532.)

Before we leave this, let us note that while earlier Ages of history are indeed past, their significance is not. There is much to learn. Mistakes made can be a tutor.

But it is not only in the realm of Ages of history that mistakes are made. They are made also in different ages of a single person, boyhood/girlhood, youth and young adulthood, middle age and old age.

As to youth with young adulthood, it is a time in which a declaration of independence may be made, from one's family, or church, or nation, or from God... As we have seen, this is unwise in the last case at least. It is superficial simply to cast off that from which one has come, though in some earthly cases it may prove necessary. With God, however, it is mere tragedy, for autonomy is illusion, God is real, and separation from Him is a dream that does not have a happy ending, since it is founded on absurdity and leads to the same, which, when occurring in sober reality, has the aspect of hell; the more so, when there is no hope; and worse still when the action is in the face of the opportunities of reconciliation with God and liberation from sin which are in Christ Jesus.

 

Let us therefore complete this word, with the word of God as found in Ecclesiastes 11:

v           "Rejoice, O young man, in your youth,

v           And let your heart cheer you in the days of your youth;
Walk in the ways of your heart,
And in the sight of your eyes;

v           But know that for all these
God will bring you into judgment.
Therefore remove sorrow form your heart,
And put away evil from your flesh,
For childhood and youth are vanity."

The meaning is that IN and OF themselves, these youthful exuberances of life when it has its greatest latitudes and opportunities, maximum resilience and much time to be expected, are merely an empty show, a preparation for what Ecclesiastes 12 so graphically shows as age creeps in. What is necessary is the knowledge of God, who made life that begins, and man in His image to experience such a beginning with reflection, and made the way for fellowship with Himself. If this is not taken, vanity indeed, empty uselessness is the ultimate result.

The message is precisely as Jesus put it, then, and it is what is found in REPENT OR PERISH, in Item 11 of the Silent Sermon, at the entry near the end of our Home Page. Toying with God and trifling with truth are dead options that lead to more than death. Life is sacred in the Lord and must be found in His life (John 17:1-3), through His sacrificial provision to cover the sin which obscures the way that leads to eternal perfection at the summit prepared for those who are His. NOT TO BE HIS is a negation of His mercy, and of Christ's sacrifice so stupendous in implication, that it is enough to render a life "vain".
 

·   

LETTERS 1 and 2: These are provided for any who want more background information on the topic in view.

Points from LETTER ONE:

In the interim, here are some pointers to the question you pose. These could serve as an introduction. There is a view, currently strongly held by some in our Government in South Australia, that religion does not deal with facts, rather with meaning statements, legends, values and so forth; while science deals with facts, so that the two are like two old friends, nodding away together as they look at life, in perfectly happy and harmonious agreement, each seeing the specialty, each appreciating the other's ... line.

Such a view has a little merit, perhaps, in some contexts, but none in other; and it is miscast as a generalisation completely. Thus in order to decide what a religion IS, you need to examine what it says, and what happens in terms of what it says. I once did this in a Senior High School course, with some amazement on the part of some; but why not?

If it declares some things to be so, let them be tried, like a glider.
It soars or crashes; so be it. As the Bible says, TEST ALL THINGS. If it does it, that is impressive; if it doesn't, that isn't. The more it claims, the better the test. Christianity's claims are total; the test is superlative therefore. It is most searching, the areas designated making it most vulnerable, all good grist for the mill; for what is strong can stand, and what being vulnerable by vast assertion, does nevertheless stand, is shown all the more in its strength. Professor Karl Popper rightly emphasised this aspect in his Conjectures and Refutations (cf. SMR pp. 307ff.).

Of course, some religions are indeed about legends, to some extent at least. Nevertheless, as my work, The Shadow of a Mighty Rock* points out, in terms of the evidence, often the ONE GOD lies behind and beyond; and is known before the movement to polytheism (op.cit., pp. 1026-1031). Fascinating new work on this is found in the magazine Creation, June -August 1998, pp. 50ff., concerning the montheistic background in China, to which of course Confucius in his very indirect way, gives attestation also.

{*This work and my others cited, are available at our current site, http://webwitness.org.au/smr/bookmap.html.)

One religion however, the Christian, is not at all of this kind imagined kind. Its whole emphasis could not be more oriented to fact, test and evidence (cf. SMR pp. 208-211, 931ff., 1139ff.., esp. 1147, 984ff., Chs.2-3, 8-9 and TMR Ch.1). Hence that generalisation is simply unscholarly and inaccurate, which would put all religions into the same category in this regard: rather like making all living creatures to have femurs, because some do! One can of course attempt a critique, but if one is simply categorising, this is wholly imprecise.

Christianity very emphatically deals with FACTS, as shown repeatedly in the words of Christ and of John; of Isaiah, of Moses, of Jeremiah. One of the classic illustrations is found in Jeremiah 45:10-29, another in Isaiah 34:16, again in Ezekiel 26, esp. v14, Matthew 5:17-20. Isaiah 41,48 shows the principle of test, test, test! It could almost be a science laboratory. USE YOUR MIND AND LOOK, appears as one of the foundational principles of Christianity, as of its forebear in the Old Testament, which indeed predicted Christ in great detail, to come (cf. The Everlasting Gospel, in Barbs, Arrows and Balms).

But let us revert to the Jeremiah passage just noted. Here, the prophet back in the vicinity of 600 B.C., is dealing with some of his most obstinate, garrulous and disobedient countrymen. They have asked for help in the name of the Lord, and Jeremiah, despite their past rebelliousness from their God... has granted the request. He approached the Lord concerning their plea for help. They, for their part, stated they would be willing to do whatever the word of the Lord would be. When however, it was actually given to them by Jeremiah, after some little time, they blankly refused to carry it out saying:

• "We will certainly do whatsoever thing goes forth out of our own mouth".

That little speech lacked as little in clarity as in defiance. The reply from the Lord included this statement of test: they would know, when God had done exactly as He said He would do,

• "whose words shall stand, mine, or theirs" (Jeremiah 44:28).

Notice the point: it is a test. We shall see how it transpires in the laboratory of history, over which God is stating, He maintains a superintendence so complete, that what He says will infallibly come to pass. (This does not in the least reduce human responsibility, but rather increases it - see SMR pp. 424ff., and further in that chapter, and if you are really interested, Predestination and Freewill.)

Isaiah likewise has this generic statement:

• "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer... who frustrates the signs of the babblers, and drives diviners mad, who turns wise men backward, and makes their knowledge foolishness, who confirms the word of His servant, and performs the counsel of His messengers..."

Likewise in Isaiah 41:21-25, 43:8ff., and 48:1-8, you see a dramatic declaration of God's speech as the one which alone is verifiable amongst those who declare what shall be, who cover the course of things; and this in competition with all others who, contrary to Him, make their efforts with their created brains, in the created world, to declare over the top of the mind of their Maker what it is, what it has been or what it will be. Prediction (and for that matter, retrodiction - the spelling out of what HAS been in the distant past) is a fascianting test for claimants, the easier to 'vet', the more outstanding the claims, since even where direct evidence it not present, implications very frequently are.

When the test is PERFECTION, it is made much easier; and in scientific method there is a sense in which this is so. ONE failure in a theory, in the realm of verification, ONE case where it does not the facts, is fatal. Organic evolution has been in this position often enough for the whole concept to be hilarious. It writhes and turns and twists with ever new formulations, but all lack evidence, all are contrary to evidence, and new proponents often justly criticise old exponents. (See SMR pp. 145ff., Ch.2, and TMR Ch.1; together with A Spiritual Potpourri, Chs. 1-9.)

Thus CHRISTIANITY has a tremendous emphasis on evidential reality, testable propositions. This does not replace faith. It is a reasonable basis however.

Again in Acts 4:20, we read: -

• "We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard";

while in Acts 1:3, Christ is declared to have been shown alive by "many infallible proofs"; and in John 8:38, we find:

• "I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have seen with your father",

similar to John 3:32. Indeed, look for that matter at Deuteronomy 13:1ff.! If a prophet gave non-factual statement of what would be, he would be put to death. The presumption of so using the name of the Almighty was a debased form of contrary religion. THAT is the nature of Christianity: factual, testable, almost provocatively insistent that NOTHING said in the name of God, in the Bible, has even the slightest chance of being false, since it is the word of the Almighty (Matthew 5:17-20, cf. SMR Appendix D).

That, then, is the method of testing, requiring factual, evidential verification. It is indeed, you will find, carrying the matter to the extreme, if you read the Matthew passage just cited; but then, if GOD indeed is speaking, why not! He is not given to error. He backs His word without limit, as you have now had opportunity to see both in the New and in the Old Testament, and especially from the mouth of Jesus Christ. Indeed, on the score, consult John 14:11:

• "Believe Me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves!"

Still on implications, with a social aspect, look at Matthew 7:24-2!

Is there reason therefore, to contradict the Bible with its clear statements on creation (cf. That Magnificent Rock, Appendix 1), as is the case with the modern scientist whose views you note ? Is the evidence vanished ? Is the evidence for the substitute propositions valid ? Does scientific method ordain it ? Let us consider.

Thus:

·  1. It is NOT in fact the case that there is any harmony, that there are spheres of influence, backyards that meet, mere neighbours, in the case of the type of preaching-science you note, and religion, WHEN science (read "some scientists") says something in contradiction of the Bible. 'Science' and religion do not so relate, when that religion is in accord with this same Bible.

·  MANY scientists, great ground-breakers and famous, new and old, believe the Bible and creation. It is not SCIENCE but preacher-scientists of ONE TYPE which is in view, and the Bible on the other. It is quite fascinating, just to mention some of the classically famous scientists, that Newton