You wrote: I'm really having a hard time understanding how you can admit that the NT writers considered Genesis 1-11 literal history, but deny that history's centrality to the Gospel message [SNIP] If Genesis appears to be literal history … then … is it wise to write Genesis 1-11 off as inconsequential and open to any and all interpretations?
My response: I am not convinced that God is going to judge the world or the church on the basis of whether or not they considered Genesis 1-11 literal history. I had said in my April 3, 2006 post that my reading of the gospel message tells me that Jesus will judge the world and the church on the basis of how they treated the 'least of these' (Matthew 25:31ff).
The man being judged has the right revelation and takes it literally. Yet, he has missed the central message of the gospel. Jesus quotes Hosea (6:4-6) when he says "go … learn what that meaneth, 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice" (Matthew 9:13 cf. 12:7). 'Learn' is manthano, the same word that is used in the 'marching orders' of Matthew 28:19 'go therefore and teach (manthano) all nations.' Before we teach, we must learn. Or, to return to your aerospace illustration: When a manufacturer fails to produce an aircraft of quality, there will be much competition and numerous attempts to produce the one perfect aircraft. There may be one 'right' manual but if those who claim to have that manual haven't got their aircraft flying, what sense is there in arguing about whose manual is right and whose is wrong?
This brings us to the question of revelation. You wrote: I know that [Habakkuk 2:4 en loc] does not say so explicitly, but to be consistent with all that is written in the Scriptures, I cannot help but believe that any admonition to the Chaldeans was to live by faith in the God of Israel and his word. [hypothetically] let's suppose that [Habakkuk 2:4 en loc] really does mean that a person could be just before God with[out] acknowledging Him or His special revelation.
My response: In the Acts 17 passage you go on to quote, Paul is speaking to 'philosophers of the Epicureans and of the Stoicks' (v18) quoting the 'poets' (the pre-Socratics) upon whom their philosophy was based: 'in him we live and move and have our being' and 'we are his offspring.' Both of these sentiments are well represented in the pre-Socratic philosophy. Yet, it is on this rather than the special revelation of the Israel that Paul bases his message. These poets did not acknowledge the God of Israel. Paul quotes Isaiah 65:1 in the Romans 10 passage you quoted in support of your argument when he says 'I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest [i.e. revealed] to unto them that asked not after me' (Romans 10:20). Yet to those 'Jews ALONE that the oracles of God were granted' (your statement), 'all day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people' (v21). God must work through other means when his elect are sleeping.
You had asked: 'faith in what?' Faith cannot exist in a vacuum. It needs an object. Are we suggesting [SNIP] that the Chaldeans then, or people today for that matter, may be counted righteous simply by living by faith in whatever religious systems/philosophies they choose?
My response: For the time being, it can be no other way since the church is sleeping: 'the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you' (Romans 2:24 quoting Isaiah 52:5 and Ezekiel 36:20). Paul assumes that the Epicureans and the Stoicks could be counted righteous by responding in faith to their philosophical system [cf. Romans 2:6-16 esp. 'the doers of the law shall be justified' (v13) and 'when the Gentiles … do by nature the things contained in the law [they] shew the work of the law written on their hearts' (v15)]. 'It is proper for men … first of all to praise God with decent stories and pure words … when they have poured a libation and prayed for the power to do what is just [530 BCE Xenophanes fr. 1 from Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers by Kathleen Freeman (Oxford: Alden Press, 1952)] and 'there is one god, among gods and men the greatest, not at all like mortals in body or in mind' (Xenophanes fr. 23). Xenophanes had no idea who this god was nor did Plato: 'the father and maker of all this universe is past finding out; and even if we found him, to tell of him to all men would be impossible' (Timaeus.29). The Epicureans and Stoicks were being inconsistent with the poets upon whom they based their philosophy. Paul had no need to appeal to his own scriptures in this instance.
Hopefully, this will cover the points I am addressing so that we can go on to other matters that you are raising in the dialogue. Thanks, JB.
You wrote: I'm really having a hard time understanding how you can admit that the NT writers considered Genesis 1-11 literal history, but deny that history's centrality to the Gospel message [SNIP] If Genesis appears to be literal history … then … is it wise to write Genesis 1-11 off as inconsequential and open to any and all interpretations?
My response: I am not convinced that God is going to judge the world or the church on the basis of whether or not they considered Genesis 1-11 literal history. I had said in my April 3, 2006 post that my reading of the gospel message tells me that Jesus will judge the world and the church on the basis of how they treated the 'least of these' (Matthew 25:31ff).
This is a "works based" salvation message, absolutely contrary to the plain teachings of Scripture, which states that we are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 4:5). Jesus' words concerning the "least of these" are part of his eschatological discourse, which describes a world steeped in anti-Semitic and anti-Christian thought and action. Those who care for Israel at that time will undoubtedly be born again Christians, saved by faith. This is a sober interpretation of what the Scriptures have to say when compared against each other. Jesus' words in Matthew 25 can in no way be made to suggest that people can be saved by works, especially when we consider Jesus' other statements (i.e. John 6:29,47).
The man being judged has the right revelation and takes it literally. Yet, he has missed the central message of the gospel. Jesus quotes Hosea (6:4-6) when he says "go … learn what that meaneth, 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice" (Matthew 9:13 cf. 12:7). 'Learn' is manthano, the same word that is used in the 'marching orders' of Matthew 28:19 'go therefore and teach (manthano) all nations.' Before we teach, we must learn. Or, to return to your aerospace illustration: When a manufacturer fails to produce an aircraft of quality, there will be much competition and numerous attempts to produce the one perfect aircraft. There may be one 'right' manual but if those who claim to have that manual haven't got their aircraft flying, what sense is there in arguing about whose manual is right and whose is wrong?
It's incredible that you would turn to Hosea to support your claim that having God's special revelation is somehow a secondary issue with respect to salvation. Have you read Hosea 4:6?
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children."
Your take on my aerospace analogy is completely flawed. The issue is one of legality, not pragmatism. It doesn't matter one iota whether or not the engine I worked on turns out "better" or "worse" in my judgment than the competitor's. Legally, I must work to the manual I am given. If I do not, I'll certainly be fired, and possibly charged in a court of law. The Bible is to be viewed the same way. Regardless of our own personal opinions and biases, the Bible is the final court of appeal, and we are commanded to follow its instructions for our lives. Again, the aircraft manuals, like the Bible, are straight forward in what they say, and I am expected to follow these instructions. People like yourself, on the other hand, have made a passtime out reading ambiguity into texts where none really exists. This is dishonest and, if I may say so, just a little sad.
This brings us to the question of revelation. You wrote: I know that [Habakkuk 2:4 en loc] does not say so explicitly, but to be consistent with all that is written in the Scriptures, I cannot help but believe that any admonition to the Chaldeans was to live by faith in the God of Israel and his word. [hypothetically] let's suppose that [Habakkuk 2:4 en loc] really does mean that a person could be just before God with[out] acknowledging Him or His special revelation.
My response: In the Acts 17 passage you go on to quote, Paul is speaking to 'philosophers of the Epicureans and of the Stoicks' (v18) quoting the 'poets' (the pre-Socratics) upon whom their philosophy was based: 'in him we live and move and have our being' and 'we are his offspring.' Both of these sentiments are well represented in the pre-Socratic philosophy. Yet, it is on this rather than the special revelation of the Israel that Paul bases his message.
I hate to disagree with you, JB, but the text is clear. Paul began with preaching the resurrection (17:18), which was presented "according to the Scriptures" if Paul was consistent in his evangelistic efforts (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). Then moved on to a creation message, including the unanimity of humanity, and only then did he relate his message to what their Athenian writings.
These poets did not acknowledge the God of Israel.
Agreed, but neither were they justified; that's the whole point. That's what Paul was there trying to rectify. Remember Paul's words to them that the days of God's "winking" at their idol worship were over. Paul called them to repent in light of the fact that God is going to judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he hath ordained - the resurrected Christ.
Paul quotes Isaiah 65:1 in the Romans 10 passage you quoted in support of your argument when he says 'I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest [i.e. revealed] to unto them that asked not after me' (Romans 10:20). Yet to those 'Jews ALONE that the oracles of God were granted' (your statement), 'all day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people' (v21). God must work through other means when his elect are sleeping.
Whoa. You've really got things messed up here I think. First, you completely failed to explain Paul's words from this passage which clearly outlines for us the importance of preaching the word of God ("Faith cometh by hearing…) Second, you assume that the heathen nations described here somehow had a saving knowledge of God granted them without the preaching of the word. The text says no such thing. In context, it makes much more sense to suppose that the heathen's salvation was a direct result of missionary activity. The Scriptures are clear that the blindness of God's elect is temporary and partial (a point made abundantly clear in Romans 11). He has always had his remnant, and it is these, of whom Paul is a part, that were responsible for propagating God's saving message (according to the Scriptures).
It's becoming very obvious that you have a pre-conceived notion that special revelation is somehow non-essential, and you're interpreting the scriptures accordingly.
You had asked: 'faith in what?' Faith cannot exist in a vacuum. It needs an object. Are we suggesting [SNIP] that the Chaldeans then, or people today for that matter, may be counted righteous simply by living by faith in whatever religious systems/philosophies they choose?
My response: For the time being, it can be no other way since the church is sleeping: 'the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you' (Romans 2:24 quoting Isaiah 52:5 and Ezekiel 36:20).
Again, these are astounding assertions without an ounce of real support from the Scriptures. How do you know the entire church is "sleeping?" And even if it was, who says God must operate the way you say? You've placed restraints upon God that simply don't exist. The Bible is ever so clear that the message is to be spread by "the foolishness of preaching" 1Corinthians 1:21:
"For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."
Paul assumes that the Epicureans and the Stoicks could be counted righteous by responding in faith to their philosophical system [cf. Romans 2:6-16 esp. 'the doers of the law shall be justified' (v13) and 'when the Gentiles … do by nature the things contained in the law [they] shew the work of the law written on their hearts' (v15)].
Again, you are meshing all kinds of Scriptures and ideas together in a way that really isn't warranted. Paul does not assume that these philosophers could be counted righteous by responding faith to their own system, as is evidenced by his statement in v. 30 that God is through winking at their idol worship, and that all must repent.
Romans chapter 2 cannot possibly mean what you want it to. It is part of Paul's discourse proving that the whole world is guilty before God. This is a thought carried straight through into chapter 3:
"What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise, for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." 3:9-12
Romans chapters 1 and 2 tell about God's general revelation to mankind. This revelation includes the testimony of creation (1:20), and our conscience (2:14-15). The idea here is that God's general revelation is sufficient to inform us that there is a God, and that we have sinned against him (whose conscience has not convicted them that they've done wrong?) In other words, general revelation is enough to convict us that we have sinned, but it cannot impart to us a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. For that we need God's special revelation, the message of the Jesus Christ as contained in the Scriptures.
'It is proper for men … first of all to praise God with decent stories and pure words … when they have poured a libation and prayed for the power to do what is just [530 BCE Xenophanes fr. 1 from Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers by Kathleen Freeman (Oxford: Alden Press, 1952)] and 'there is one god, among gods and men the greatest, not at all like mortals in body or in mind' (Xenophanes fr. 23). Xenophanes had no idea who this god was nor did Plato: 'the father and maker of all this universe is past finding out; and even if we found him, to tell of him to all men would be impossible' (Timaeus.29). The Epicureans and Stoicks were being inconsistent with the poets upon whom they based their philosophy. Paul had no need to appeal to his own scriptures in this instance.
It's true that this passage does not mention Paul referring to the Scriptures specifically. However, it does have him beginning his evangelistic efforts with the preaching of the resurrection of Jesus (17:18), which only make sense if he first preached the crucifixion. These truths are absolutely essential, and cannot be ascertained through general revelation (These essential truths, I might add, are foreign to the philosophies of the poets you quoted). So though Paul is not recorded as referring to the Scriptures specifically, his message is clearly tantamount to what they contain.
His mention of their poets is in no way an affirmation that they could be saved apart from scriptural truth. He was simply using their writings as a connecting point between his and their worldviews. It's a fact that cultures around the world contain elements / beliefs that parallel certain scriptural truths. Nonetheless, these are not sufficient in themselves to bring people to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. Special revelation is essential, and Paul was merely using these cultural commonalties to the gospel as stepping stones on which he could lead these folks to the Savior.
Notice that according to Acts 18, Paul left Athens and came to Corinth. His first letter to the Corinthians reminded them of what he first shared when he arrived there. These details are contained in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8, which recounts details concerning the death and resurrection of Jesus "according to the Scriptures". Remember, according to Acts 17:18 Paul started off preaching the death and resurrection of Jesus to the Athenians as well. Again, even if he did not refer to the Scriptures specifically at Athens, he undoubtedly shared their message.
To lay your misconceptions about the non-essential nature of the Scriptures to rest, consider these important New Testament facts relevant to evangelism:
In Athens, as we saw, Paul began his evangelistic outreach with a proclamation of the death and resurrection of Jesus - which happen to be scriptural truths (Acts 17). He left there and went to Corinth where he definitely preached the message of the cross "according to the Scriptures"(Acts 18, 1 Corinthians 15). In Acts 19, Paul preached at Ephesus, which was definitely a pagan culture. In v. 10 we are told that as a result of Paul's preaching, all who dwelt in Asia, both Jews and Greeks, heard the word of the Lord. It's hard to imagine that scriptural truth was not the focal point of Paul's preaching. There is much more to substantiate this point.
In v.20, we read that because of Paul's efforts many of them which used curious arts (i.e. sorcery, magic, etc) burned their books before all men. V.21 gives us the result: "So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed." Apparently not all "spiritual" writings are equal. Here a decision had to be made between God's special revelation and other competing worldviews.
Paul would later pen a letter to those Ephesians, which speaks directly to your claims that special revelation is somehow non-essential, and that the heathen can be saved without it. Paul writes:
"Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ." Ephesians 2:11-13
"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" Ephesians 2:19-20
I really don't think you are being honest with me, the Scriptures, or yourself, JB. The Bible seems ever so clear concerning the centrality of God's special revelation to salvation, yet based on your philosophical preference not to believe this, you've interpreted (or ignored) these passages in the most peculiar ways.
Hopefully, this will cover the points I am addressing so that we can go on to other matters that you are raising in the dialogue. Thanks, JB.
The purpose of this discussion was to determine whether or not the Genesis account of creation was central to the salvation message. But since you have a different salvation message than I do (i.e. a works-based salvation) how can we discuss which the proper way to evangelize? I think we will first need to see eye-to-eye at this level before the Genesis question can be addressed.
Furthermore, it is apparent that you are quite convinced that none of God's special revelation in scripture is essential to salvation. With this in mind, there seems little point in even bothering to discuss Genesis specifically. Please respond to the points that I have raised here. With all due respect, I've found your arguments against Scriptural truth being essential to salvation less than convincing.
John Feakes