Creation

In the Bible "creation" is an alpha and omega theme: in the Book of Genesis we learn about the original creation when "God created the heaven and earth" and in the Book of Revelation we see the glorified creation (re-creation) when the one who "sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new" (Revelation 21:5).

The Lord Jesus Christ is the Second Adam who by way of obedience and righteousness will make new all the things that the First Adam corrupted by way of sin and rebellion: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:22); "For if by one man's offence [Adam's] death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:17).

"Creation" is an alpha and omega theme because all of Scripture speaks of the Creator-Christ: Christ is the "Alpha" Creator, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men" (John 1:1-4), and Christ is the "Omega" Creator, "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. . . . And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write for these words are true and faithful. And he said unto me, It is done. I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; I will be his God, and he shall be my son" (Revelation 21:1-2, 5-7).

Creation Economics

Recently Peter Leithart plays sounding board for Pastor Rich Lusk, who "points out that in the feeding of the five thousand, the disciples gather up more food than they started with. They spend resources, but their reserves increase rather than decrease." Leithart briefly reflects on the implications of the economy of the kingdom of Heaven, suggesting -- "This is the economy of the kingdom: The Father rewards generous service, so that our expenditures of time, energy, and resources don’t deplete but add. We find more time, energy, and resources to expend on further generous service." Leithart continues with the conclusion that "The economy of the kingdom is magical because creation is magical."

In the final analysis, the kingdom is not limited by economic's norm-of-thought, i.e., the (heretical?) doctrine of "limited resources." God's resources are abundant. How do we know? God is the omnipotent Creator. And Miracles are for reals, duh. Also, if you want to be a Christian economists, how about reading 1 Kings 17 everyday for a decade. God feeds the prophet with bread from ravens. That is cool. However, I am well aware that it is difficult to quantify that sort of thing, but if your economic theory doesn't take it into consideration . . . well, what can I say--if that is the case, then your theory is as broken as a kitten pet-to-death. It is cute, but, alas, d.e.a.d.

Thus, fecundity: the economy of the kingdom.

Creation Being Itself

"The work of the Spirit, as well as being fundamentally eschatological, is also essentially immanent: the Spirit works within creation, establishing the creation's ability to be itself to the praise of its Creator" (Stephen R. Holmes, Listening to the Past: The Place of Tradition in Theology, 158).

Graveyard Science

Doug Wilson recently posted Seven Theses on the Age of the Earth.

Theses #4 -- The fossil record is a record of death. The fossil record is a graveyard. We have exegetical reasons for believing that this paleontological graveyard was planted after the fall of man. We have a time stamp for Adam in the genealogies, and because of what the Scriptures teach about the nature of death, the recorded deaths of all sentient beings needs to be dated after that point.

The Lord of Time and the Lords of Time

Peter Leithart offers some great reflections on God and time.

Truth

Discussing the tenet "Christianity is true and anything opposing it is false," K. Scott Oliphint says, "God's revelation describes the way things really and truly are in the world. That is, we are saying that what God says about the world is the way the world really is" (Covenantal Apologetics: Principles and Practice in Defense of Our Faith, 51).

Oh, Really?

From the entry on 'Evolution': "Some fundamentalists wrongly hold that the theory of biological evolution conflicts with the Genesis account of creation, instead of appreciating the admirable picture it offers of God working with wisdom and power "from the inside" to bring about higher forms of life and eventually the emergence of human beings" (Eds. Gerald O'Collins, S.J. and Edward G. Farrugia, S.J., A Concise Dictionary of Theology, 73).

###

All of that just to show that sometimes when one stands up for Biblical truth, because one is a Biblical absolutist, that said someone runs the risk of being mislabeled. But have no fear. Sacerdotalism is not truth. So, just because somebody waves a label over and around you doesn't mean that label is efficacious: to spite their invocations, at midnight you will not magically turn in to a fundamentalist.

If you want to call creationists 'fundamentalists', then so be it. But you're wrong: we're not necessarily fundamentalists -- I'm sure that some creationists are fundamentalists, the same way some Roman Catholics are evangelicals, believing in justification by faith, but in those cases I like to think of it as the exception and not the rule.

Oh, how we live in a complicated world. :)

Covenant

God is the Master and Creator of the Universe. He is the Divine Head, the Lord of creation, and as Lord he self-discloses himself to man “by way [mode] of covenant” (Westminster Confession of Faith, VII.I).

God is distinct from and sovereign over all of creation. This means that there is a permanent-and-ontological difference at back the relationship between God and the creation. Thus, we can say that there are two ontological realities in this world:

     1) the eternal and infinite Triune-God.

     2) the temporal and finite creation.

What are the implications?

For starters, this means that creation is ontologically and metaphysically dependent upon God. In John 1:3, God revealed that through the Word, Jesus Christ, all things were created: “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” Therefore, Jesus Christ is the “source of all activity and life” (Marcus Dods, The Gospel of John, vol. 1, The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, reprint 1983), 684).

Since man is temporal and finite and distinct from the eternal and infinite Triune-Creator, there must be some way that God relates-to and relationships-with Creation. According to Scripture, God freely chose to reveal and relate to creation by way of covenant, that is, covenantally (Genesis 2:17, 6:18, 9:11; Exodus 6:4, Deuteronomy 5:3, Psalm 25:14, 89:3; Luke 1:72; Romans 10:5-20, 11:27; Hebrews 12:24, 13:20). The milieu of God’s covenant with man is God’s law. “The law of God expresses God’s holy nature to man (Greg Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, (Nacogdoches: Covenant Media Press, 3rd ed.), 141). Therefore, God's law is the axiomatic system of the covenant.

God expresses his holy nature to all of creation; God relates covenantally with all of creation, but since man was specifically created in God’s image, and as such is a representative of God to the rest of creation, this implies that man has a moral and an ethical obligation to obey the stipulations of God’s law. Since man has this ethical obligation to keep the law of God, there are conditions and promises tied to God’s covenant with man. The covenantal conditions and promises are sanctioned by God’s authoritative declaration: on the one hand, blessings and life will be rewarded for covenantal faithfulness and obedience, while on the other hand, curses and punishment unto death will be rewarded for covenantal unfaithfulness and disobedience (see Deuteronomy 27-30).

We see in Scripture that God has made two covenants with man: the first was a “covenant of works” made with Adam, the first federal head of humanity; the second was a “covenant of grace” made with Jesus Christ, the second Adam, the federal head of restored humanity.

Adam failed to keep the ethical obligations of the “covenant of works” that God made with him, and as the federal head of humanity sanctioned curses and judgment unto death for himself as well as all of his descendants. Thus, ever since Adam’s fall mankind has attempted to make himself the measure of all things: sinful man’s aim is to be absolute, sinful man’s aim is to be autonomous. By this vain attempt, sinful man attempts to usurp God the glory for which He alone is due. Because of sin, the relationship (covenant) is broken that exits between man and the Divine. Secondarily, it is also important to note that man’s relationship with the entire created-universe is broken.

Cornelius Van Til noted, when God created Adam and put him in the Garden of Eden, Adam was supposed to be “a prophet, priest, and king under God in this created world” (Christian Apologetics, ed. William Edgar (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2nd edition, 2003), 41). God intended for Adam to “interpret,” “dedicate,” and “rule” the world, not for the sake of himself, but for God. That is, for God’s glory! Sinful man, however, does not execute the offices of prophet, priest, and king for God’s glory, rather he twists that ingrained-innate-calling as he attempts to be absolute and autonomous.

Thus, sinful man is always trying to do prophetic, priestly, and kingly things in this world, but he does them while in a broken relationship (covenant) with God. So, what proceeds is this: false interpretation, perverted dedication, and corrupted rule and judgment – these things are not of God but are of man, thus, the prophetic, priestly, and kingly things that fallen men accomplishes are after the “tradition of men” and “not after Christ.” (cf. Colossians 2:8: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” Paul is saying you need to fashion knowledge and belief after (the knowledge and belief in) Christ, that is, after the Creator, not after knowledge and belief of the traditions purported by sinful men and a fallen created-universe.)

However, God freely chose to make a “covenant of grace” with Jesus Christ, the second Adam, the obedient prophet, priest, and king. Jesus Christ was obedient, he had covenantal faithfulness and entirely fulfilled the ethical obligations of God’s law as prophet, priest, and king. Jesus Christ, therefore, faithfully interprets, dedicates, and rules the world for the glory of God!

So, what we know about God by way of the covenant is that God is not only the Lord who created the universe, but that he is also the Lord who mercifully restores sinful men and renews creation. God does that by adopting sinners through propitiation, that is, through the obedient and atoning prophetic, priestly, and kingly work of Jesus Christ, with whom God made a “covenant of grace” – wherein God “offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved” (Westminster Confession of Faith, VII.III).

Man: Created in the Image of Speaking Triune Lord

From the introduction and conclusion of an article discussing a recent study's findings that premature babies process speech even as neurons are migrating into place (!!!) -- written by John Timmer at Ars Technica:

The human brain has a remarkable capacity for interpreting speech, with large areas of the brain given over to tracking the sound and interpreting it as language. The neurons that manage this capacity are put in place during our embryonic development, and these are able to respond to sounds shortly after birth. But now, a new study looked at brain activity in premature infants, and it showed the networks that respond to syllables are already active well before most infants are normally born.
...
It's often difficult to distinguish between the things our brains are structured specifically to do and things our brains are structured to have the capacity to learn. The fact these areas of the brain can pick out speech differences even before the final structure is in place, however, provides some support to the idea that some capacity to speech is inherent to the brain.

Some capacity to speech is inherent to the brain, indeed. Milton Terry understood this:

Language is not an accident of human nature; else might it utterly perish like other arts and inventions of man. It is an essential element of man's being, and one which distinguishes him from the brute (Biblical Hermeneutics, 71).

So did A. W. Tozer:

Thought and speech are God's gifts to creatures made in His image; these are intimately associated with Him and impossible apart from Him. It is highly significant that the first word was the Word: 'And the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' We may speak because God spoke. In him word and idea are indivisible (The Knowledge of the Holy, 2).

And Christian evangelists know that speech is inherent to our brains (that it is inherent to a physical aspect of our nature). No surprise there. After all, Jesus Christ instructed us to use speech to teach and call sinners to repentance and baptism in the name of the Triune Lord: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen" (Matthew 28:18-20). Evangelism and preaching is all about speech (perhaps we could even say evangelism/preaching assumes "some capacity to speech is inherent to the brain").

God spoke creation into existence, and God speaks (has spoken) the new creation into existence. I think this is what the doctrine of justification is all about, really. Insisting and echoing what we've been told: that the Triune Lord is consistently a God of not only creation-making speech but also redemptive speech. That He is a Lord who not only creates but restores and saves a sinful and fallen creation, and that He does so by the power of His declarative word, which he declared before the foundations of the world according to His good pleasure when He chose/spoke that Christ (the Word) would provide atonement for our sins. God said, "I saved you." Our response is to echo God, "God saved me!" When you boil down basic Christian teaching -- i.e., in the words of J. I. Packer, "Adoption by propitiation [atonement]" -- we only teach that which the Father has already spoken through the Holy Spirit about His only begotten Son/the Word.

And for those who speak Science, this is the abstract from the recent study referenced in the Ars Technica article:

The ontogeny of linguistic functions in the human brain remains elusive. Although some auditory capacities are described before term, whether and how such immature cortical circuits might process speech are unknown. Here we used functional optical imaging to evaluate the cerebral responses to syllables at the earliest age at which cortical responses to external stimuli can be recorded in humans (28- to 32-wk gestational age). At this age, the cortical organization in layers is not completed. Many neurons are still located in the subplate and in the process of migrating to their final location. Nevertheless, we observed several points of similarity with the adult linguistic network. First, whereas syllables elicited larger right than left responses, the posterior temporal region escaped this general pattern, showing faster and more sustained responses over the left than over the right hemisphere. Second, discrimination responses to a change of phoneme (ba vs. ga) and a change of human voice (male vs. female) were already present and involved inferior frontal areas, even in the youngest infants (29-wk gestational age). Third, whereas both types of changes elicited responses in the right frontal region, the left frontal region only reacted to a change of phoneme. These results demonstrate a sophisticated organization of perisylvian areas at the very onset of cortical circuitry, 3 mo before term. They emphasize the influence of innate factors on regions involved in linguistic processing and social communication in humans.

Evolution: Much Ado About Nothing

Yesterday Mashable posted an article about YouTube channel EvolutionDocumentary, which has assembled 300+ YouTube videos on Evolution. The Mashable article ends on a rather, how shall I put it, hubristic note.

We're not sure about the rights arrangement here [I assume he means copyrights and intellectual property rights of the various BBC, PBS, Discovery Channel, National Geographic videos utilized for this YouTube channel] . . . It's great for students, folks who want to brush up and perhaps those who need a little convincing that science is, you know, real.

Come again? ". . . those who need a little convincing that science is, you know, real." Alright. I'm game. I'll give this a quick whirl. Come along with me, click the EvolutionDocumentary link.

The opening video is "Comparing the Human and Chimpanzee Genomes" and the narrator begins by saying,

Humans and chimpanzees parted company in evolution about 6 million years ago from a common ancestor [CCS|Tree & The Seed is already suspicious].

The narrator goes on to discuss the similarities between the human and chimpanzee genomes. He points to a visual display that has symbols representing the genome data. They've created a matrix with series of parallel rows, a running comparison of the human genome against the chimpanzee genome. The columns are populated with elements/entries which symbolize the various human and chimpanzee genome data.

As you run your finger across the parallel rows you see that there are similarities down the columns. "T-T", "A-A", "C-C", etc. However, differences between the human and the chimpanzee genomes are offset, represented by a new image. Instead of a connecting "|" line, there is a picture of a man. Very cute. A man swimming around in a sea of human and chimpanzee alphabetic-symbolism.

The presuppositions are glaring. Just let the tape roll and you will catch them. The Narrator says,

 All away along here they are identical. . . . Follow along this row here--chimp/human, chimp/human--identical, identical, identical, there's a difference. . . . all the same, all the same, no difference at all between the human and the chimpanzee . . . now we see a difference . . .

Identical? Identical? Difference? Identical? Identical? No difference at all . . . now we see a difference? Hold the phone. Let me get this right. You're telling me that something can be both identical and different? I thought those were mutually exclusive? So you dump all of this data on me and, Wham!, I'm just suppose to believe in Evolution? And if all of this isn't already confusing enough, the Narrator closes with an absolutely startling, jaw-dropping presuppositional disclosure. He says,

 Almost all of the human genome and the chimpanzee genome is identical. A tiny number of differences account for all of the really quite large differences that we see between humans and chimpanzees.

I am not a prophet or the son of a prophet, but I will tell you what all of this means. It means that the argument for evolution, from the genome standpoint, has nothing to do with "science that just looks at the hard facts," which is a mythical idea if there ever was one. When this guy talks we learn more about what he thinks and what he presupposes to be true than what we learn about genomes. This Narrator is a talking head for EvolutionDocumentary. "Hard facts" did not convert him to be so inclined towards evolution. "Hard facts" are a laughable concept, but for the sake of argument, assuming there is such a thing as a "hard fact", then rest assured readers, and know that it was not genome"hard facts" that convinced this man. Yes, proof is in the pudding, but it aint' here. Rather, he already presupposed the truthfulness of evolution (contra the Narrator, I presuppose that God created the world in six days, that there was a real, literal Adam and Eve, etc., and I believe all of that on the authority of God's word--I believe it because God cannot lie).

The Narrator carries his presuppositional sensibilities with him. He is a walking (upright), presupposing interpreter, and a technical education can't change that for anyone, not one lick. A "blank slate" has never walked up to human genomes and chimpanzee genomes and thought out loud, "Well, let's figure out what we have here?!?"

The Narrator said, "A tiny number of differences account for all of the really quite large differences that we see between humans and chimpanzees" . . . and in the face of all of the "quite large differences" he suggests that this means that 6 million years ago we shared a common ancestor. The theory of evolution presupposes that a mythical, common ancestor existed, so I am not surprised that an evolutionist sees genomes and thinks "common ancestors"--to the guy with a hammer, everything is a nail. If only a small number of differences account for the really quite large differences, then why go to such lengths, and attribute importance to, discussing the large number of similarities? Isn't it just a wash or moot point? Seems to me that quantity doesn't determine quality, and if that is the case, then couldn't someone argue this from the other direction? E.g., "Well, such-and-such a things have next to nothing in common, well, that is, except for these few similarities which account for the really large number of defining attributes, and since they have that minority in common with one another it means that this carrot and the Sun have a common ancestor 6235697891 years ago. It has to be true. They are both the color Orange." Yes, consciously hyperbolic, that.

I will not watch the 300+ videos. I may watch a few of them, but not all. This opening video is not compelling. Logically this stinks. Please bear with me, the end is near. We will use symbols. Human genome = H. Chimpanzee genome = C.

H = H
C = C

Pretty basic. However, there is one more thing. The Narrator in his own words said that the human genome is not the same as the chimpanzee genome. He said there are tiny differences that account for all of the really quite large differences we see between humans and chimps. This means that . . .

H ≠ C

The human genome is not the chimpanzee genome. Yes, I know there are similarities. But as a whole they are not identical. They are not exact. If you look at two things that are not exact in order to argue that the similarities between the two inexact things infers that so many millions of years ago there was an exact common ancestor, then you are wasting my time. Give me a break. You want me to place my faith in your judgment? I do not think so. In the words of my two year old, "No, Not! No, Not!"

If H ≠ C, then what you have is 0 identicalness. That is a zero. It is meaningless to look at similarities between two inexact things and deduce a common ancestor 6 million years ago. To quote Ayn Rand, who was addressing a totally different topic, "If you write a line of zeroes, it's still nothing." Got that? Evolution is nothing.

0 identicalness + 0 identicalness + 0 identicalness + 0 identicalness +  = nothing identicalness

However, today we see Much Ado About Nothing . . .

0 identicalness + 0 identicalness + 0 identicalness + "scientific" interpretation of genomes by a God-hater-who-does-not-take-God-at-his-word = 6 Million Year Old Common Ancestor Identicalness

Pro-God = Pro-Reality = Pro-Life

The Church is Pro-God, Pro-Reality, and Pro-Life.

The Church believes in God, in truth, in reality--"We believe in one God . . . maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible"--the Church believes in God and creation. And this belief is the foundation for a Pro-Life ethic. Social Justice for the unborn (life-in-the-womb) must be rooted in this grammar--God is the sovereign creator of heaven and earth, of that which is seen and unseen, and He alone creates and defines this (all) reality.

That being the case, what does the Creator say about in utero? Is He silent about the reality of the life of cells multiplying in a womb? Hardly--See Exodus 21, Psalm 22, 139.

Van Til: Christian Metaphysics

"So I point out that the Bible does contain a theory of reality. And this theory of reality is that of two levels of being, first, of God as infinite, eternal, and unchangeable and, second, of the universe that is derivative, finite, temporal and changeable. A position is best known by its most basic differentiation. The meanings of all words in the Christian theory of being depend upon the differentiation between the self-contained God and the created universe" (Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (4th Edition by P&R Publishing, 2008), 237).

Apologetics: Innate Knowledge

We know that God exists because of innate knowledge. But why? How is it that knowledge of God is innate? What makes that the case? To find the answer we must consider two things about our creaturehood.

1. How are we made? God "spoke" creation into existence ex nihilo, out of nothing. God spoke the scientific things we call "space" and "time" and "matter" into existence, and then like a potter does with a pot, he formed that stuff into things. God formed man out of the dirt of the earth and breathed life into him. This is how God created man.

2. What are we made of? Since God spoke the world into existence and created it out of nothing, that is, he merely spoke and it was so, this means that man is made out of God's spoken word! This means that everything is made out of God's spoken words, which are so powerful that the thing said becomes the thing. Divine speech is truly creative and powerful!

What are we made of? Raw material that God spoke into existence, out of nothing. And it is God’s voice that sustains us. As N D Wilson says, we are God's spoken world. It would make sense then that knowledge of God is innate knowledge.

Triune, Thus Creator

God is Triune, thus the Creator. So argues Robert Letham via Herman Bavinck:

"It is impossible to think of creation (this creation, this multifaceted and coherent creation, the only one we know and the only one there is) coming into existence apart from its maker being relational, and so in accordance with his full revelation as triune, as Bavinck so cogently argues. Bavinck goes even further, arguing that 'without generation [the generation of the Son by the Father] creation would not be possible. If in an absolute sense God could not communicate himself to the Son, he would be even less able, in a relative sense, to communicate himself to his creature. If God were not triune, creation would not be possible.' This is borne out by hints in the OT of distinction within the unity of the one God" (Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity, 22).