#3
Posted on 03/03/2003 8:27:25 AM PST by general_re
None. And you'll find that the_doc (and, by extension, God), agrees with me.
Cordially,
I detect the stirrings of your transcendental sensory organ.
#3
I address this issue in #33.
Cordially,
Perzackly. (But the "you" is "you, the creationist.")
Thanks for your post. I assume you are correct here. But I would have to say that I think some folks are barely human, so to speak, in the regard of human discernment.
(The dullness of fallen humanity ought to be addressed, even if it is a lot like trying to teach pigs to sing. [I assume that this is why Diamond and others have been willing to elucidate the philosophical details of what is already obvious to us.]
My point is that the anti-creation bias which fallen sinners have is profound. It is a problem in everyone, but the most intelligent anti-creationists often prove to be the biggest idiots. [For example, there is a decided tendency for the highest-IQ folks to be outright atheists--despite the obvious fact that atheism is intellectually untenable.]
The whole things is funny to us Christians, especially to us Calvinists [Psalm 2:4].)
As a kid, I wondered about what Edwards was saying--but not a whole lot. (Most teenagers are not terribly thoughtful about the things Edwards was talking about. That thoughtlessness is a manifestation of the depraved mess I mentioned in my post #73.)
When I was in college, I had to research the literary work of Nathaniel Hawthorne, which research introduced me to the writings of an important Harvard professor named Perry Miller. Although I was not a Christian at the time, I had begun to learn a few things about Protestant/Calvinistic theology, and it seemed to me that Miller understood the Calvinistic mindset better than most non-Christians. Or, at least, Miller understood that the Calvinistic mindset, right or wrong, was momentously important in American history.
As far as I know, Miller never became a Christian, but he still had a pretty profound respect for Edwards (whom he regarded as perhaps the strongest genuis in the history of the Western Hemisphere). On the occasion of addressing a group of illustrious academics concerning the works of Jonathan Edwards, Miller paused to make a very sober comment about Edwards's theology. He said something to the effect of "If Edwards was correct in his theology, then we are in very, very serious trouble."
As I understand it, no one laughed. They realized that what Miller was saying was true, even if they could not believe what Edwards was saying. (Some of them surely realized that what Edwards was saying is that the reason why they could not believe Edwards's warnings is precisely because his warnings were correct. Edwards was warning them that they were under the terrible wrath of their own Creator. Edwards was warning them that their spiritual flippancy was not merely the reason for the Creator's anger, but the result of His anger. [Think about that for a while.])
In my own investigation of the theology of the Reformation, certainly including that of Jonathan Edwards, I was intrigued to discover that Edwards's famous sermon on Deuteronomy 32:35 was the very sermon which lit off the Great Awakening, arguably one of the most important revivals in world history. I also found it interesting, to say the least, that this revival actually laid the spiritual foundations for the American Revolution and the framing of the U.S. Constitution.
Despite what the revisionist historians try to insinuate, the U.S. was founded largely by Christians, not by Deists. (Only three of the 55 Framers were Deists. One of the Framers was a Jew. Fifty-one Framers were professing Christians.)
Even more interesting, perhaps, the Constitution was framed largely by thoroughgoing Protestants. Two of the 51 professing Christians were Romanists; one historian has declared that three of the Framers were Quakers. This left 46 solid Protestants solidly in control. (As I have pointed out to my RC FReeper friends on other threads, the fact that the Protestants controlled the proceedings is ultimately why we wound up with the First Amendment's protections of civil liberties, especially religious freedom. The U.S. Constitution was a kind of flowering of the Protestant Reformation--since our Constitution was ultimately a repudiation of Constantinism. [Even Jefferson, the Deist, got his arguments for separation of Church and State from the Protestants themselves.])
But where does Edwards fit into this picture? It's partly related to his own association with Benjamin Franklin (who was one of the Framers, of course). But in a broader sense, Edwards's most important role was that of "lighting off" the Great Awakening before the Revolution. That revival solidified the Eighteenth Century Colonies in Christianity. It's apparently the main reason why the majority of soldiers in the Colonial Army were Christians and almost all of the Constitution's Framers were Christians.
Moreover, the Great Awakening was primarily a revival of the powerfully confrontational Calvinistic theology of Edwards and his famous evangelistic associate George Whitefield. Although the Arminian John Wesley showed up later on the evangelistic scene, he was not as important in the evangelistic appeal as were his Calvinistic colleagues Edwards and Whitefield.
Interestingly, the Arminian John Wesley was a Tory. He vigorously opposed the Revolution. And when we look again at the denominational loyalties of the 43 solid Protestants who controlled the Framing of the Constitution, we discover that at least 43 of the 46 were Calvinists--i.e., more or less like Edwards in their theology.
Isn't that interesting? I certainly think so.
***
I realize that the above discussion is a digression from the topic of the thread. But since you brought up Jonathan Edwards, and since this Forum is one centering on Americanism, I think it is important for you to understand the theology of our Republic's founders. I specifically think you ought to re-think Edwards's warnings about the terrible reality of the phenomenon of reprobation.
(The doctrine of reprobation explains most of today's liberals. But I'm afraid that it also explains a lot of today's conservatives.)
This warning is especially appropriate in view of your screen name. Although the historical Patrick Henry was not one of the Framers, he was one of the more zealous Calvinists in the Revolutionary period. And I'm afraid that he would not regard you as very wise at this point.
***
A few years after my readings in systematic and historical theology, I became a Christian. I was astonished to realize how dull I had been in regard to my apprehensions of my own Creator. I suddenly had eyes to see what I could not see before--even though it was there all along.
The epiphany for me involved the crushing realization that we come into this life already damned. This is the real point of Romans 1:18-32. God has given over the Adamic race to a Creator-hating depravity. That is the token of the ferocity of God's anger. Only a few undeserving souls will be supernaturally jerked to their senses under the sound of the gospel.
Most churchgoers assume that God is angry at man for suppressing the Truth in this life. But the whole mess is an order of magnitude worse than that. Paul is actually arguing that God gave the race of Adam over to a Creator-ignoring depravity in Eden. (When the race of man actually knew God, they did not glorify Him as God or give Him thanks.) In other words, the Truth-suppressing wickedness seen in our day--including sinners' obstinate incapacity for grasping the Truths of Creation--are actually a manifestation of God's anger against you.
Apart from supernatural-revelatory intervention, you cannot escape the wrath of your Creator. This was what Perry Miller was talking about. And despite Edwards' warnings, Miller never escaped that wrath. He could not, would not believe the gospel. In other words, Edwards was correct.
Interestingly, the Arminian John Wesley was a Tory. He vigorously opposed the Revolution. And when we look again at the denominational loyalties of the 46 solid Protestants who controlled the Framing of the Constitution, we discover that at least 43 of the 46 were Calvinists--i.e., more or less like Edwards in their theology.
***
Anyway, I think this stuff is pretty important--especially when we realize how much Calvinism is despised on FreeRepublic. (The anti-Calvinistic mindset is ultimately pretty un-American in a peculiar way which today's religiously ignorant FReepers don't seem to be able to grasp!)
I hope this helps you appreciate why I use a slightly different tack than most people use when they argue the issues of creation versus evolution.
And if you will pardon a little teasing, those of us who do regard the fact of the Creator's existence as transcendentally obvious are inclined to regard you as mentally defective.The reason I am quoting you at some length here is to provide a factual foundation for my firm opinion that you are an insufferably pompous, self-righteous, arrogant, insolent, and overbearing bore. Your contribution to the substance of this thread is zero. Please save your precious time and cease addressing your posts to me.
[snip]
In short, I say there is no weakness in me. I would have to say that I am just more reasonable than you are.
53 posted on 03/04/2003 11:44 PM EST by the_doc
As a consistent Calvinist, I feel compelled to point out that I regard you as unreasonable, as wickedly biased against truths which I frankly do find to be transcendentally obvious.
[snip]
The fact is, you obviously hate your own Creator. And as a consistent Calvinist, I would urge you to consider the possibility, at least, that He hates you (Matthew 23:33).
55 posted on 03/05/2003 12:00 AM EST by the_doc
I submit that we creationists are more intellectually honest than the non-creationists. We are more rational than the non-creationists.
[snip]
My bottom-line point is that antichristian scientists are not at all reasonable. (This is why I specifically dared to point out that avowed atheists are complete fools. They don't have an intellectual leg to stand on--but the poor fools manifestly don't care about that.)
57 posted on 03/05/2003 2:01 AM EST by the_doc
My point is that the anti-creation bias which fallen sinners have is profound. It is a problem in everyone, but the most intelligent anti-creationists often prove to be the biggest idiots.
73 posted on 03/05/2003 12:24 PM EST by the_doc
Although the historical Patrick Henry was not one of the Framers, he was one of the more zealous Calvinists in the Revolutionary period. And I'm afraid that he would not regard you as very wise at this point.
74 posted on 03/05/2003 2:51 PM EST by the_doc
The reason I am quoting you at some length here is to provide a factual foundation for my firm opinion that you are an insufferably pompous, self-righteous, arrogant, insolent, and overbearing bore. Your contribution to the substance of this thread is zero. Please save your precious time and cease addressing your posts to me.
(In case you didn't notice, I win [ha!].)
Cordially,
Now, seriously, if this Creator exists and he is just as the_doc describes him, I can't imagine that someone would choose to spend eternity in his presence. If I had a choice I'd go to the Gulag voluntarily.
I'm not worried about meeting the Creator. I'm looking forward to it. What really scares me is finding myself in a heaven filled with people like the_doc. But it can't happen. If that's really heaven, I certainly won't get there. It sounds more like my idea of hell. And if the_doc is down there, I won't be. So it's a win-win situation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.