God's Foolishness Vs. Man's Wisdom
Below is my reply to Hill Roberts' response.
Concerning The Background Of The Original Comments
I was invited to the meeting Hill Roberts mentions in his response, and, yes, there were other topics to be discussed, but the supposedly Old Earth vs. Young Earth views were of special interest to many in attendance. That part of the study was to consist of point-counterpoint presentations. I was assigned not just the opening "devotional," but the title as well. Because Hill Roberts was present to tender his views, and because I knew he had been scheduled ample time to address anything I might say, I did not think it unfair to point my lesson in his direction. It may not have been "nice," but I don't think I did anything ungodly. Even though my assigned title was "God's Foolishness Vs. Man's Wisdom," it seems clear it did not pass brother Roberts' litmus test for what a "devotional" should be. Although I imagine there were those present at the study who agreed with his assessment, I know there were others who didn't. Even so, my little 15-minute speech, as he mentioned, did serve to "clearly focus the tension for the rest of the week." I do not think this should have been the case, but for reasons best left unsaid, and of which Roberts is well aware, this is the way it turned out.
When Hill says, "My response was to say nothing about the speech whatsoever; even though I thought it contained several misrepresentations," he is guilty of misrepresenting what actually happened. In fact, he referenced, almost verbatim, what I had said about his belief that the six days of Creation, when understood as consecutive days encompassing 144 hours, presents more of an obstacle to genuine faith (particularly in a scientifically sophisticated audience) than does the claim of Jesus' resurrection from the dead. In my presentation, I called this "absolutely preposterous," and this clearly bothered Roberts as he referenced it in one of his presentations. In fairness to him, he may have already prepared this reference prior to hearing my presentation, as I had previously told him this in an online discussion, but not many in the audience would have missed who or what he was referring to.
Now, it didn't bother me at the time that he made reference to what I said, nor does it bother me now. But when someone wants to nitpick me to death in order to make his case that I have "misrepresented" him, then I have the right to point out that when he says he mentioned nothing about my speech "whatsoever," he is, in fact, misrepresenting the facts. I can certainly appreciate how he could have forgotten this, and I'm not trying to make a case against him. I'm simply trying to show that while he feels free to nitpick me in his effort to show that I've misrepresented the facts in his case, he is, in fact, guilty of the very thing of which he accuses me (cf. Romans 2:1).
In truth, I have spent no small amount of time studying Roberts' position on this topic. Therefore, I'm well aware of what he believes and teaches on this subject. Moreover, his views have been widely disseminated by various means and are therefore available to all who are interested in what he's said and written on this matter. In other words, you can read his materials yourself and come to your own conclusions as to what he really believes and teaches about this.
I may have misrepresented him. If I have, I assure you it has not been intentional. But, I realize this isn't enough. Hence, I have published his rebuttal right along side my original article so the interested reader can come to his own conclusions about whether or not I have misrepresented him, intentionally or otherwise. Moreover, where I believe he has adequately demonstrated my misrepresentation of him, I will happily acknowledge this as I review his response. So all minds can be right on this, I am replying to him in the order, and under the subtitles, of his original presentation.
1) Natural And Special Revelation
Whether Roberts' allegiance to the idea that natural revelation is equal to special revelation is "unflagging" or not is, and this ought to be obvious, open to interpretation. I believe it to be unflagging; he doesn't. However, he, of all people, ought not to be falling out with someone who holds a different interpretation than his. In fact, different interpretations is what this whole affair is really about. Therefore, if Hill Roberts is entitled to his interpretation of the days of Creation without anyone taking him to task, then why shouldn't he be willing to grant me my interpretation of what I believe to be his belief in the idea that natural revelation is equal to special revelation?
In his published material on this subject, Hill makes it clear that he believes natural revelation, when properly interpreted, is yet "another passage" to compare with special revelation. Consequently, I can't see how I'm being unfair when I say that such thinking elevates natural revelation to the status of the 67th book of the Bible. He can say, as he's done, that my assessment of his position "is not correct," but that doesn't mean he's being accurate when he says so. I realize he knows the difference between special and natural revelation, and I've never said he didn't. My point is when natural revelation is but another passage to be considered when trying to make the correct interpretation of special revelation, then my 67th-book-of-the-Bible analogy is not only fair, it's right on the money.
What happens, one might ask, when conflicts arise between the "most straightforward," "least contrived" interpretation of Scripture and what Roberts believes to be the "facts" of science? Simply this: his approved science seems to always win out. In my way of thinking, the Bible cannot compete on such an uneven playing field. He knows that I have no objection to a fair and forthright investigation of science and revelation, or the idea that special revelation ought to be consistent with the known facts, or vice versa. However, I do strenuously object to any demand that says Scripture must be, or even than it can be, interpreted by the think-sos of the scientific establishment. When this happens, words seem to always wind up being bent and shaded until they fit the accepted scientific theory. This is my complaint with Roberts' hermenuetic, and contrary to what he says, I do not think my assessment of his commitment is in error. And if I'm not entitled to my interpretation, even when it impinges on his allegiances, then I don't know what an OEC-YEC discussion concerning the days of Creation could possibly be about.
2) Uniformitarianist
Hill Roberts says he is not a "capital U uniformitarianist." Fine, but he knows he wasn't the only one referred to in my article, although he was the only one mentioned by name. In fact, there are those who identify themselves as OECs who do acknowledge fitting my definition, although they appear to me to be theistic evolutionists. Nevertheless, when I defend Hill from the theistic evolution charge, which I consider to be false, and a charge I believe prejudices folks against him and his arguments, it should be clear that I do not consider him an Evolutionist or a capital U uniformitarianist, or a uniformitarianist to the nth degree, as I sometimes describe these folks. At the most, he's an augmented capital "U" uniformitarianist. What he really is, is sometimes hard to pinpoint. He's not comfortable with the term "progressive creationist," although he says he can understand why he's lumped under that designation by some. However, he defends a particular cosmology (viz., Big Bang) which he, in turn, uses to interpret the Bible. His interpretation of the fourth day of Creation is quite interesting along these lines, especially his stellar evolution assumption, which encompasses billions of years before one ever gets to Genesis 1:14. Having said all this, if I've left the impression in my article that I think Hill Roberts is a capital U uniformitarianist, I apologize, as that was not my intention.
3) Concerning Physical Death
Ever since Genesis 3, the message that comes screaming from the Bible is that the whole creation suffers because of man's sin. It is a re-occurring theme in the prophets. For example, in Jeremiah 4, in a call for Judah and Jerusalem to repent, the prophet tells the people that the land will suffer because of their sin—the fruitful place will become a wilderness (verse 26) and the earth will mourn (28). Surely you can see the Genesis-3 theme, can't you? In fact, this is the theme Paul uses in Romans 8:20-22 (compare verse 22 with Jeremiah 4:31). And it is the same theme being emphasized in Revelation 22:1-3, albeit from the opposite point of view. So, it seems clear to me that the Bible teaches us, and this from the very beginning, that man's sins affect not just man, but absolutely everything (i.e., the "whole creation" [see Genesis 3:17; Romans 8:22]).
Attempting to paint me with an Augustinian-Calvinistic brush is something Roberts and his cohorts have attempted before. The Bible teaches there were physical and spiritual consequences resulting from the Fall, and if Augustine and Calvin got some of this right, then so be it. On the other hand, the belief that ever since the Fall man is totally depraved is not taught in the Bible, and I categorically deny it. Conjointly, I reject the "imputed sin" doctrines of both Augustine and Calvin. So, it sounds to me like Roberts is just trying to dirty the waters a bit.
Nevertheless, I do think any clear-headed Bible student will understand that man is, indeed, sin-sick, and that this sickness influences the whole gamut of things, including theology and science (cf. Jeremiah 10:23; 17:9). If this is true, and I believe it is, then Hill and I both need to be careful about what we say and do. Nevertheless, wanting to paint me with his Augustinian-Calvinistic brush, he says, "To correctly reject imputation of depravity to all mankind, while promoting the imputation of sin's death to all animals—which never sin, but do die—is inconsistent." I learned a long time ago not to demand that everyone see things exactly like I do. Especially, I do not demand that brother Roberts, or anyone else, bow to my speculations. What I do ask of him, and others, is not to ignore the import of plain Bible teaching in favor of the so-called "facts" which are derived primarily from uniformitarian assumptions. And Roberts' uniformitarian assumptions (notice, please, that I didn't say capital "U" uniformitarian assumptions) are blatantly obvious when he writes, "Physical remains of animals in strata consistently below strata bearing human remains indicates other things had been dying long before any man did." Now, this cited "fact," which any clear-thinking person recognizes is built on uniformitarian assumptions, is yet "another passage" that Hill uses to reject the most straightforward, least contrived reading of Romans 8:20-22. The fact that he asks me, "And are you really willing to apply the always arguable Romans 8:20-21 passage positively to animal death (when death of any kind including human is not mentioned in the passage) instead of to the rebirth (which IS what's mentioned)?," is designed, I think, to depict these clear verses of Scripture as somehow not saying what they are clearly saying, namely:
For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. (Romans 8:20-22, NKJV).When this is interpreted in light of the next two verses, which say, "Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body," I am hard-pressed to see how the apostle Paul could be referring to the "rebirth," as Roberts claims. In fact, Paul makes it clear he is comparing the suffering of this "present time" with the "glory which shall be revealed in us" (cf. Romans 8:18-19). In other words, these may be difficult passages for some, particularly for those who believe the fossil record to be repleat with "futility" and "the bondage of decay" long before man was ever created, but one thing this passage isn't talking about is man's spiritual rebirth, which is something that takes place within the "sufferings of this present time," and not in the "glory which shall be revealed [notice the future tense here] in us." How anyone could claim that this is "an obscure—and largely irrelevant—issue" simply blows my mind and serves, I think, as a pretty good indicator of why so many of us get upset with a nature-is-the-67th-book-of-the-Bible hermeneutic.
Brother Roberts can make fun of "the whole creation" groaning, including "fruit flies," along with "bugs and slugs," if he wants to, but in doing so I want you to notice he wasn't exegeting Romans 8:20-22. Instead, he was dealing with Romans 7:24, which is clearly dealing with humanity. Although I have asked him in the past to exegete Romans 8:20-22, I'm still waiting for him to do so. Instead, we get speechifying on what it can't be. Why? Because of the fossil record with all its evidence of suffering and dying, that's why! If this isn't a nature-as-the-67th-book-of-the-Bible hermeneutic, or nature as yet "another passage" for interpreting Scripture, then what is it?
4) On Christians Not Having To Be Nice combined with Roberts' last section entitled "Rebuked"
There are dialogues and then there are dialogues. Some dialogues are exercises in niceness, simply pretending that our disagreements make little or no difference. To such dialogues OECs and YECs, or for that matter almost anyone else, can be invited without difficulty. We can all exchange "warm fuzzies" and feel good about having made the effort, as this serves to demonstrate how reasonable we believe ourselves to be. Then there is dialogue that is in service to the truth. Unfortunately, many today are no longer interested in dialogue of this kind. Tired clichés, cheap irony and sophomoric rhetorical tricks are disappointing, to say the least. Finally, the predictable tone of brother Roberts' response was addressed in my original article and manifests, I think, an effort to neatly pigeonhole all who disagree with him. Frankly, I find it all rather disappointing.