Posted on 06/07/2007 11:23:25 AM PDT by topcat54
Sure, why not?
I guess I expected better. Was your issue that DeMar criticized Morris' scholarship, or that he criticized Morris period?
If you read my first post you would know that my issue with DeMar was that he seemed to think he could somehow convince a skeptic of the truth of scripture using logic and persuasive argumentation.
There is no reason to believe that "the space of six days," the language found in the Westminster Standards, means anything but the obvious and normal meaning of the words. There are two issues here to consider. First, the interpretation of the days of creation as being long ages or normal days separated by long ages is a position which arose long after the drafting of the Westminster Confession. To allow men who hold such views today to say that they are in full agreement with the Westminster Standards is to stretch the language of the confession beyond the intent of its authors. As if to remove any doubt as to their understanding of the days of creation, the Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 120 states that one of the reason we are to work six days every week but not the seventh is "the example of God, who in six days made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day."
Second, the language of the confession is a phrase used by John Calvin to oppose Augustine's teaching of instantaneous creation. The Westminster divines were learned men who were no doubt aware of Calvin's usage of the phrase when they chose to use it themselves. In Augustine's position, the six days of creation are a literary device with no literal chronological significance. If the phrase "the space of six days" means anything, it means that the days of creation refer to a literal space of time as opposed to being a non-chronological literary framework. Men who today hold to a literary framework view of Genesis one usually believe in creation over long ages and not in instantaneous creation. Still they agree with Augustine that the days of creation are a non-literal teaching device and not six days in an historical narrative. In this sense, men who today hold to a literary framework view of Genesis one hold to the same general position which Calvin argued against using the very words "the space of six days." To allow literary framework men to say that they are in full agreement with the confession is to go beyond stretching our confessional language. It is to allow the language of the confession to encompass a form of the very position which that language, as previously used by Calvin, was meant to exclude. If we allow this, then how can we say with any consistency that our doctrinal standards actually define our doctrine? We must not become post-modernists for whom language and standards have no fixed meaning.
a) you misconstrue DeMar's words, and b) Morris’ explanation of the text is indefensible.
DeMar never said that only by logic and persuasive argumentation will a person become convinced of the truth. Reading everything he’s written should convince you that is not his view. On the other hand, the apostle Paul used logic and persuasive argumentation in many instances to convince unbelievers on the truth of the gospel, all the time recognizing that it was the Holy Spirit working through his words to bring about God’s salvation.
What you seem to wish to ignore in this entire discussion is that when Christians say silly things in defense of the gospel, they cast the Word of God and their Savior in a rather poor light. If a skeptic/unbeliever can see through the exegetical gymnastics that folks like Morris need to construct in order to make the Bible fit their view of the future, then they ought to be taken to task, just as DeMar has done.
If you wish to defend the indefensible, then have at it. But don’t read more into Demar’s comments than are truly there.
I’m a six-day creationist ala the Westminster Confession position that you quoted. I fail to see your point in offering Grover Gunn’s comment.
So does that mean that you hold to a literal creation in the span of six days. (Six spins of the earth in temporal time)?
I fail to see your point in offering Grover Gunn’s comment.
The comment was directed to Dr. Eck. If DeMar can defend the six day creation, young earth and global flood using non-dispensationist hermenutics, then by golly he should write a book about it. Instead he gloms onto the Skeptic's argument as a means of trashing dispensationism rather than refuting the Skeptic's arguments about the young earth and global flood using his own non-dispensationist hermenutics.
DeMar rags on his fellow Christian for appearing to be inconsistent while at the same time offering no arguments of his own that would stand his own test of consistency. In other words the global flood and young earth subject is merely a platform for his denunciation of dispensationism. What a surprise coming from DeMar (/sarc).
If DeMar is a young earth creationist and a global flood believer, one certainly can't tell it from this essay.
That's what that means.
… then by golly he should write a book about it. Why, just to satisfy your views on what constitutes appropriate commentary? For the record, you can search the American Vision web site and see the creationist activities of DeMar and his colleagues, including the Worldview Super Conferences they offer which often have speakers/topics on creationism.
All this info is easy enough to find out if one were interested.
DeMar rags on his fellow Christian for appearing to be inconsistent while at the same time offering no arguments …
Methinks you have not read enough DeMar to make that determination.
But just in case you really missed his point, let’s try it again.
The hermeneutical method that Morris allegedly employs to support a six-day creation/young earth view fails him miserably when it comes to future things. The method that arrives at “this” means “that” and “this is that” means “this is like that” is so transparently false that even skeptics can see the error.
It doesn’t require a book length treatment to show the error of such a method. Besides, a book would only make you task that much more difficult, since you have yet to actually come to Morris’ defense and help solve his hermeneutical dilemma.
Maybe your friends that you pinged to the party can help you out.
Well that hermenutic is often employed by calvinists who claim that all means some and some means all. Additionally that Hermenutic is employed by Preterists who claim that the 70AD siege of Jerusalem was the worst tribulation that the world has ever seen, despite the fact that more people were killed in the six year siege that began in 130 AD than were killed in 70AD.
WWII dwarfed any tribulation that had occurred in the first century and yet we are to believe that the 70AD siege was the worst that would ever occur?
Everyone has their inconsistencies. The Bible is true, but our understanding of it is clouded and we see through a glass darkly. I have found that the dispensationalist model is the most consistent interpretive method. You may disagree. We are probably both wrong. When that which is perfect is come, then the whole thing will become clear.
Been there done that. It’s been explained how the biblical use of the word “all” is vastly different than the sleight of hand attempted by Morris. You need a different tune.
Your task is to answer Morris’ critics.
WWII dwarfed any tribulation that had occurred in the first century
That’s your opinion only. It is not support from any explicit biblical theology. It’s obvious that a person making such a claim does not understand how comparative language is used in the Bible. It’s merely a tactic to scare away the uninformed. It’s won’t work with me.
Everyone has their inconsistencies.
Yep. Admitting them is the key to growth and knowledge of the truth. That is why I’m not longer a dispensationalist. The inconsistencies are big enough to drive a truck through.
Simple. Since when are we required to accept as gospel the interpretation of scripture done by a skeptic? If he is a skeptic, then by definition, he is not going to accept any interpretation of the bible as being consistent or true. His bias is against the truth of scripture.
Now, in regard to the "this=that" argument, when you read Mat 24:23, Jesus is speaking to his disciples (that is, in reality every Christian who will ever be born again, i.e. including us) and he says that when you (disciples) shall see "ALL these things" (not "some of these things"... ALL); when you shall see all these things, "know that the end is near". Well the end hasn't happened yet, has it?
Going on to verse 24, Jesus says "this generation" that is the generation that sees "all these things" shall not pass away until "all these things" are fulfilled.
Now if a skeptic wants to find fault with my heremenutic, then so what? Let him. Do you think he'll be more impressed with your hermenutic that presupposes that "all those things" did occur, but it just happened to miss the attention of all the historians at that time, including the Apostles and the early Church fathers?
Give me a break. The dispensational hermenutic in regard to the Olivet Discourse is much more tenable than the preterist hermenutic.
Go ask Michael Ruse if he is willing to believe the scriptures if they presuppose that all the things mentioned in Matthew 24:29-32 have already occurred. Ask him if he would be any less skeptical of your interpretation than that of Dr. Morris. I dare you.
And
John 10:4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. 5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
***So, while it is true that no one will be convinced apart from the operation of the Spirit, it is equally true that God intends the message to be accurate and in accordance with the Word of God.***
You demonstrate, yet again, that we believe more of the Bible than Arminians. Like many things, it is simply the taking away from Truth to preach half a message.
Well then I'm glad I'm not an Arminian.
FWIW, the Catholics believe in a much bigger bible, so by the same token you could say that Catholics believe more of the Bible than Calvinists.
BTW if I preach the Bible, what part of it would be innaccurate or not in accordance with his word?
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.