What theologians call “General Revelation” leaves men Without Excuse
The Bible here teaches, “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” What does it mean that people are without excuse?
Theology has been downgraded in the minds of secularized people, which is most of what we call the western world now. Theology being the study of the God and things related to the Creator is thought of as inferior to what is called “science”. Never mind that things which are often called “science” do not even fit under their own definition of science. As a result “Theologians” are disrespected and largely disregarded by the by the many millions of us who have been indoctrinated with secular thought.
God declares to us however that this study of “Him” i.e. “Theology” is in fact the most important study of all and that He has given us more than enough information to get started on the path.
BiteByte on this piece of truth:
The key word to consider in this secular vs theological thought comparison is the word EVIDENCE.
Paul asserts that God’s invisible attributes are clearly perceived by EVIDENCE that is not invisible.
The attributes include His eternal power and divine nature, two aspects of God available to every person since the creation of the world. How were these attributes seen? The needed evidence is in the things that have been made.
1 The heavens declare the glory of God,
3 There is no speech, nor are there words,
The created universe reveals there is a Creator, plain and simple, and the argument every “Atheist” or “Agnostic” will ultimately have to make is an argument with the Creator Himself. Included in this general revelation is also a conscience which is a built-in, intrinsic sense of right and wrong but we will leave that discussion for another BiteByte.
The assertion here is that all people are without excuse for at the very least failing to recognize that God IS and that they should seek Him.
The natural, visible, tangible world is what scripture asserts here will the be the FIRST BASIS of EVIDENCE which God will judge ALL HUMAN BEINGS by. This primary evidence is part of what theologians call “general revelation“. This is EVIDENCE that available to ALL PEOPLE everywhere which the Creator expects some recognition of and some action based upon. The expected action is to SEEK HIM.
Evidence is given to all people that there is a Creator who is by clear inference of what we can see and observe EXTREMELY POWERFUL and OUTRAGEOUSLY intelligent. We should also infer that the Creator is worthy of worship before we even move on to investigate special revelation which indeed we should investigate.
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called
1 Tim. 6:20
This is a vast topic. Keeping it Bite Sized here consider this simple truth. Written historical records go back only a few thousand years.
The modern printing press was invented in 1450. Less than 1000 years ago! The more labor intensive Chinese woodblock devices for duplicating written material go back further but still at most
circa 648 BC. That means no matter how you slice it less than 2,000 year of written history was based on something other than manual creation of written material, written on cloth, scrolls, stones, rock walls etc.
So how is it that “intelligent” people can call things facts that occurred long before recorded history, without not only living eye witnesses but without even written record of witnesses?
Essentially speculation is falsely labeled “science” and accepted as “fact” despite being based entirely on interpretations of things like old bones and rocks as if no other interpretation of those things is possible.
“Science falsely so-called” is, in the Greek, literally “pseudo-science” or “pseudo knowledge.”
All that we discover in “nature” is designed,
planned, orchestrated with the purpose and intent of it’s designer.
Thomas Paine: “ It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences, and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin.Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles: he can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.”“ The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools, in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only, has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism.Instead of looking through the works of creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of his existence.They labour with studied ingenuity to ascribe every thing they behold to innate properties of matter, and jump over all the rest by saying, that matter is eternal.”
“The Existence of God–1810”
I found it very interesting that Presidential Candidate Ben Carson addressed a question and a issue which I often see discussed and debated and some length in discussions related to origins.
The question is about the age of the earth as it relates to “Creationism”. Creationism is a phrase I put in quotes because I find so much ignorance and fallacy as to what our modern secular society thinks these things mean.
At any rate I found it very interesting that Ben Carson tired to answer the question very similar to the way I usually answer it. The topic can lead also to the Theological topic and debate on the “Gap Theory” or in some way explaining that the Bible does not specify an age of the earth.
This thread is from conversations I’ve participated in on the topic.
Most people that say they “believe in Evolution”, i.e. the common man often speak of it as an answer to the origin of life. They fail to understand even the very belief system they are believing in because they don’t grasp that evolution is NOT an explanation of the origin of life at all.
Evolution depends first on the existence of the cell, DNA and all it’s replicating chemistry before it can even HOPE to get started (and still has MANY intellectual hurdles to overcome even assuming a start from preexisting simple life).
At any rate, anyone that really understands the theory of Evolution knows that it is not an explanation for the origin of life, because it depends on the existence of life to begin with therefore this book is addressing a question that Darwinian Evolution does not even address, the origin of the chemical programming and information that is the basis of physical life.
When is what you may call ‘Evolution’ no longer real ‘science’?
When you begin to describe things that you interpret to have happened, especially many, many thousands of years ago (before recorded history) and neither YOU nor anyone you know has actually observed any of it let alone can you or anyone you know repeat it.
Of course a person may define a word such as ‘science’ or any other word in any way they’d like in order to satisfy a motivation but if the goal is to determine ‘facts’ or in a larger sense ‘truth’ then the old fashioned understanding of science where required things to be “testable” “measurable” “falsifiable” “repeatable” etc. reflected an important way to reach certain categories of knowledge reliably.
Consider that disingenuous and even deceptive beliefs have entered into consciousness of millions today by describing massive amounts of assumptions as “evolution” and also asserting them to be ‘science’.
Insofar as ‘science’ deals with things we can all call “provable” “observable” “repeatable” “falsifiable” “FACTS” then much of what is being placed under the umbrella of “evolution” is in fact not at all ‘science’ in any traditional sense.
What used to be called “adaptation” or what some now call “micro evolution” fits the definition of “science” that most reasonable minds can accept without much difficulty. In point of fact these features of “evolution” described this way are a direct function of the “DESIGN” inherent in cell life and DNA chemical information programming.
On the other hand assertions such as “millions of years ago a single cell became a sea animal of some kind which many millions of years later gave rise to everything from Elephants of land to Birds of the air”, well these type of assertions are not in anyway science in the sense of the former understanding.
These type of evolutionary ideas are interpretations based on observing what is and imagining (quite irrationally actually) what MIGHT have occurred. These things have not been observed, repeated or in any way “proved”.
They are simply “beliefs” paraded under the guise of the respected word “science” when they in fact are NOT science in the common sense that people understand it. Evolutionary assertions of this type are actually a competing belief system to which people ascribe to it’s interpretations of the physical world often with the same zeal and fervent defense as any religious zealot.
In addition a religious zealot at least may be basing their zeal on observable evidence that they have themselves observed such as the authors of the Scriptures asserted. The source of their zeal in that sense may be based on definitive evidence they experienced even if that evidence is not ‘repeatable’ for others, at least not for those whose heart is not similarly positioned.
In that sense, it’s possible for the spiritual minded individual to be far more “scientific” than those placing a massively broad brush over the term “evolution”.
1Tim 6:20 …, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
There was 3 embryos in the belly of their mother: the little believer, the little doubter, the little sceptic.
The little doubter: do you guys think, there is a life after birth? The little believer: Sure there is. Our life here is meant to make us grow and prepare us for the after birth, so that we will be strong enough for whatever is waiting for us.
The little sceptic: Nonsense. It doesn’t exist. How would it look like, life after birth?
The little believer: I don’t really know myself but I guess, it will be brighter than here, out there and we will walk around and will be able to eat with our mouth.
The little sceptic: Are you nuts? Us walking around is impossible and eating with our mouth is a stupid idea. The umbilical cord feeds us already. There is no life after birth.Besides, the umbilical cord is now already too short.
The little believer: I’m sure there is. It will be just a different life. The little sceptic: Nobody ever came back from life after birth. It means, life ends with the birth.
The little believer: Even if I don’t know how life after birth looks like, we are finally gonna see our mother.The little sceptic: Mother? you believe in a mother? Where is she? The little believer: here, everywhere around us. We live in her, we live through her . Without her, we wouldn’t exist.
The little sceptic: stop it. I never saw her so she doesn’t exist. The little believer: sometimes, when we are very quiet, you can hear her singing, you can feel it when she touches gently our world.
Anyway, I believe that our real life begins after birth….