Maybe I’m just not understanding their Clarkian position correctly. I don’t think I’ve seen them address this anywhere. Have you?”

Now, Dorothy is at least honest here (give credit where credit is due). But, to ask Roderick about Clark is like asking Richard Dawkins about the Bible! For Dorothy, yes, it’s been dealt with, if you just think about it for a little bit. 1. Moses, who we both believe wrote the first five books, obviously compiled these books from other WRITTEN sources, and ORAL stories, as well as his OWN revelation. This last aspect, his own revelations, means that, at that time, in accordance with Hebrews 1.1,2, “God SPOKE…..” Who needs text when you have direct communication with God? Now, Dorothy, you occassionally display sound reasoning (just the fact you believe Moses wrote Genesis is a score above!). So, let me ask, was God DIRECTLY speaking to those whom he called? And, was this DIRECT WORD (revelation) then spoken (orally) and written to others? To Clark’s point, then, God REVEALS knowledge by means of the WORD (Logos) whether written, spoken or illumined. However, that was then. Today we have, mainly, the written text which is a MEANS by which the Spirit illumines our minds (words are tags, or signs through which meaning is communicated – it is the meaning). And, so, Clark would argue, that simply “reading” a book in your hands, like a “bible”, may or may not produce conviction (that’s the Spirit’s job). Intellect (invisible), meaning (invisible) and conviction (invisible) are works of God that may come through “signs” (words on a page) – but, it didn’t come by “seeing” scribble. It came by faith (a gift from God that enables one to read and see the meaning with conviction). I doubt this is how Roderick would answer (since he never read Language and Theology by Clark).

Their principle wreaks havoc.

Nice article! This chapter was the one that sort of stopped me in my reading and review of the earlier version (not sure which one it is now!) of the book. Unless I misunderstood, they seem to be saying that “The BIBLE says you can't just use the Bible, you need 2 or more witnesses…” So, the Bible is still the ultimate authority to say that you can't use it as the ultimate authority!!??

Thanks,

Scott

Well, I am on vacation right now. I will deal with that, yes. I have already done some prelimenary research – it's all in my mind right now. The Preterist approach is best served with the Presuppositionalist method. It was this method that allowed me to “come in” to Preterism. If I had to accept the “several witnesses” view, the witness of Church history would overwhelm me. What does Jeff and Tim do with the “witness” of the Church on these matters? Roderick followed along these lines as well, hence, “2000 years of church history” argument. The Presuppositionalist approach starts with the Bible (which Jeff denies as a starting place). Instead, they start with the very thing Roderick starts with: God exists (ontological trinity) and the witnesses test of truth. This would play right into the hands of Roderick, I believe (and Roderick here would be right, if his argument were sound). Theology can be strange. Here we agree with Paul T. and Dr. Talbot as to starting points, and disagree with Roderick Edwards, but find Jeff Vaughn advocating more or less the argument of Roderick Edwards, so we have to oppose Jeff, like Dr. Talbot opposed Roderick……strange twists…..lol

I am still very interested in knowing, from a Clarkian logical perspective, how we interpret the bible with deductive force starting with languages, grammar, and moving on to literary types, knowing the audience(history), etc… No pressure on you Sam, but I'm hoping the paper you're working on addresses some of these philosophical issues.

martin

Removing the creation of man from Genesis does open the door for such, but none of that has anything to do with Calvin.

Many cov. creationists are not calvinists, either in a modified or historical sense. That's not the motive. The motive is what i put forth above, i believe. It is science related.

Furthermore, my last two articles can fit right into calvinism. While i don't call myself a calvinist anymore (in the traditional sense), i am certainly arguing for a sovereign prerogative in the salvation of individuals.

Tami ~ how is it a straw man when i am dealing DIRECTLY with the book? Typical Tami, here. On the one hand, they want to push a unified front, but when you start chipping away at it, Tami has to step in and say, “yeah but, we don't say that.”

I wasn't reviewing Tami. I was reviewing BCS, ch. 19.

Scargy ~ Yes, i do check DID occasionally and i checked it last night because i figured my article would be commented on…and it was. Unfortunately though, Scargy does not deal with anything in my article, except a follow up comment.

And since Scargy appears to like logic (straw-man), then John should be able to point out to me the fallacy in Ward's statement:

“So, a total of 12 chapters of the Bible are devoted to the creation and destruction of the physical universe and a total of 1177 deal with the history of the Israelites. For some reason, that just doesn’t seem balanced.”

Not only is it a fallacy, but it doesn't even properly represent the preterism RCM teaches.

Tim ~ Tim has been begging for reviews and such; yet, here i give a lengthy review on ch 19 and now he is whining about the other 18 chapters. lol. He asks where we have dealt with “multiple witnesses”? ROFL. I just did!

Typical Tim.

Tami then insults our readers here, that they apparently hang on our every word. Apparently, we're all blind sheep now.

Norm ~ Norm does not disappoint:

“Who could give a flip about their ramblings about science and philosophy?”

And there you have it, folks. There is no discussion with these people. The reason i wrote this was because JL was whining on PD that Sam was ignoring the 20 pages of chapter 19. Here i am dealing directly with the chapter, only for it to be dismissed as a rambling straw-man against Tami.

Not a SINGLE comment on my analysis of Jo 5 and 8, and the BCS misapplication of Dt 19.

Oh well. I saw that coming. That's been the pattern from them. But i did not necessarily write this for them anyway.

Just take notes folks: that is what you get when you review their work…nothing but ad homs and complete avoidance of what i wrote. By the way John, you are free to interact with my post here. So come on over and let's discuss my article…since i am not allowed to join DID.

In going about it this way he has overlooked a very important point regarding the redemption of man – that Abraham was to be the father of MANY nations. That is why his surmisings about the creation of Adam as only being about Israel's beginnings is in error. Because the creation of animals is not cryptically depicting that a race of men who became known as Gentiles is somehow separate from Adam's line. Instead – in Genesis, we find that the Nephilim were the line begotten by Cain, then from the sons of Noah we find Israel coming from Shem, the Canaanite nations by Ham and the Gentile nations were those begotten by Japheth – which shows all the nations are related to Adam and not separate from him. Which is why following the story line from the beginning, would have led him to see how Abraham was not just to be the father of Israel, but thru Israel would bring Christ into the world, so that by the covenant made first with Abraham even Gentiles would be redeemed in the post flood world.

They are bringing confusion to the elective purposes of God which the testimony establishes, as well as the covenants which men were enjoined to.

Psa 19:7 – The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

Isa 8:16 – Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.

Isa 8:20 – To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

So-called science which starts with observing the evidence is beginning at the place of darkness, whereas beginning with the revelation from God is the place where light is found for our path as we move forward.

I suspect that the reason they want the animals to depict a race of men unrelated to Adam, is so that God needn't save those who are outside the covenants. Which in turn supports the idea that God only elects some to salvation and that the atonement of Christ is therefore limited. So men who resist the grace of God could not be expected to do otherwise since He has no part with them in the first place, since they were created to be totally depraved. I doubt Calvin realized that his ideas would open the door to evolution, but such are what doctrines of men do who let their own vain imaginations guide them in their search for truth.

Robin

This is a devastating essay. Good work. We have been making this point for years. This kind of reasoning is not sound, and runs into numerous contradictions, as you have pointed out.

“Making Genesis refer to an unrelated scientific account of creation is not only illogical, irrational, and scientific nonsense; it also is a grave mishandling of Scripture, considering the weight of evidence pointing to its proper place and significance in the context of the whole story. “

Again, proves my point above. Notice the words “scientific nonsense.” Neither Ward, Tim, nor JL have proven that the common scientific views of the earth are “sense”. It's just assumed. And then, that scientific sense is used to force the Bible to say something that would not conflict with that.

They are making science the ultimate standard. That's dangerous.

What we affirm at RCM is:

“We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit. We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.”

Science has a place, but can never be used to overturn Scripture. If Young Earth Creationism is false, it is to be shown through sound exegesis of the text; not by assuming the truth of science and then forcing Genesis into a theory that immediately excludes physical creationism from the beginning.

That's called eisigesis.