Replies

"If so, is GOD so puny that He allows this 'inaccuracy' in His Word??"

Actually, the truly puny impression of God is the one which limits the extent of his omniscience in denying that he can predetermine that the exact outcome of a contingent materialist process he created will be the emergence of the material form of modern man, waiting to have his spiritual soul created. When opponents of the Theory of Evolution argue against the contingent material development of man for religious reasons they frequently do so using language which typically states that evolution asserts the emergence of man as an accidental event, which cannot be true if God's omniscience is to be supported. But making this argument presupposes that God's intervention can only be as the primary cause of the material origins of mankind and, in doing so, denies that God is capable of acting through secondary causes, contingent upon the workings of the material processes he himself has created, to bring about man's material origin in the exact form he originally intended. To hold forth that the providential creation of the material form of man can only have been from God's direct action is to view God as incapable of creating a contingent material process whose result would be man as his material form is recognized. And any argument advanced which attaches a notion of incapable action to God is one which sees him as puny, since by design it limits the breadth of action God the creator may undertake.

What is frequently held up in argument against the possibility that God did not permit the material form of man to develop naturally is that the translated form of the written word of revelation; which in ordinary language says that God created the world in six twenty-four hour days, man as a gender before woman, and woman as a gender from man; tells us that the biblical story of creation negates the possibility of evolution as a sufficient cause for man's material origins. But even here there is a second theological error. Unlike the instance discussed above, in which denial of the possibility of God the creator acting through contingent material causes to create man's material form underasserts the scope of God's omniscience, here the mistake is to overassert the capabilities of human beings to understand the true nature of God. The written word of God as revealed in the Bible is presented to mankind with the warning, in both the Old and New Testaments, that man must be careful not to overestimate his abilities to understand the true nature of God, whose magnificent omniscience is beyond mortal comprehension. St. Paul himself notably made this argument to the Greeks in describing the primacy of faith over reason. So in their insistence upon taking the translated word of revelation contained in the biblical story of creation in the Book of Genesis as literal fact, which amounts to a positive conclusion that it must be literally true, proponents of the Creationist world-view demonstrate their belief that they do understand the true nature of God, by throwing all skepticism and contrary argument to the winds.

The two arguments which support the Creationist case can therefore be presented as not making merely one doctrinal error of Christian theology, but two. In the first instance God's omniscience is underasserted by the denial that he is capable of acting through the contingent material processes he created to bring about the precise result he desired. In the second instance humankind's rational ability to understand God's true nature is overasserted by holding forth the undeniability of the literal reading of the translated word of revealed truth contained in the creation account of the Book of Genesis. And it is in these twin errors that we can relate the extent of their divergence from Christian theological ethics.

The basic rule of a Christian life, as taken from separate biblical quotations first brought together in form by St. Augustine, is that a Christian is to live in this world without becoming of this world. As a theological argument this advances the notion that a Christian must recognize both his fallibility, in that he is commanded to live in the world never entertaining notions of his own perfection; as well as his own depravity, meaning that he must not become of the world and deny God what is rightfully his own. The Creationist argument for the biblical story of creation contained in the Book of Genesis is especially noteworthy in that it commits both errors simulataneously. On the one hand there is the fallible mistake of refusing to live in the world in asserting their own perfection in knowing God's true nature by their unquestioning postulation of the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis as true, even as it is contradicted by a mountain of established scientific observation. On the other hand there is the depraved error of limiting the boundaries of God's omniscience in restricting the notion of divine causality to God the creator as as a direct cause of man's material origin, denying that it is possible for God to achieve or fulfill his plan in exactly the manner in which he intends to do so through the very contingent material processes he created, which is reflective of human thought of this world, which denies God his due in the required human submission before his total omniscience.

Note to doc30: This post, for its use of Augustine's "basic rule," was Jesuit-influenced

... proponents of the Creationist world-view demonstrate their belief that they do understand the true nature of God, by throwing all skepticism and contrary argument to the winds.

Another excellent post. The point I copied describes an attitude that I see endlessly displayed in the evolution threads. The scientists assert that they have sufficient evidence to support the theory of evolution; although they are open-minded to the possibility of evidence which might indicate otherwise. In response, the creationists -- from a posture that presumes perfect comprehension -- assert that this contradicts everything God has revealed, which they assume to understand with unfailing perfection.

What a wonderful post...I am copying it for myself to read and reread again...thanks, St.Jacques, you have a way with words, and quite eloquently have stated my very own thoughts on this matter, tho I could never be quite so eloquent..

Lately, it has been very rare for me to compliment someone on their well thought and well articulated postings. It is even rarer for me to download them for future reference. Thank you for your thoughts. Free Republic is much better because of your presence here.

As a theological argument this advances the notion that a Christian must recognize both his fallibility, in that he is commanded to live in the world never entertaining notions of his own perfection; as well as his own depravity, meaning that he must not become of the world and deny God what is rightfully his own.

Ok, but it appears that some folks may disagree:

NIV Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.

NIV Matthew 5:48
Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. -- Jesus of Nazareth

NIV Matthew 19:21
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

NIV 2 Corinthians 13:11
Finally, brothers, good-by. Aim for perfection, listen to my appeal, be of one mind, live in peace. And the God of love and peace will be with you. -- Paul of Tarsus