The following is a quotation from page 4, my emphasis:
"Although modern man is much more sophisticated in the religion he invents, he continues to do the same sort of thing the Phoenicians did. Consider the mythology of evolution. Because a person does not feel comfortable accepting what the Bible says about the creation of earth in six literal days, he accepts the theory that all life happened by chance. He imagines that certain inorganic elements randomly combined into the amino acids that form the basic organic chemical building blocks of all living things. Then, he reasons, through the dual mechanisms of genetic mutation and natural selection, all the incredibly complex and varied plants, animals, birds, and fish we see around us evolved over several hundred million years. A few scientists have dared to criticize Darwinism--even to the point of calling it a hopelessly naive remnant of the nineteenth century (see Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box). But, although some criticize evolution, they seem incapable of positively asserting that the Bible is God's inerrant record of how the world began. Evolution is popular because it allows man to view himself as an independent agent, free from responsibility to the Creator. Man has put himself in the place of God and worships his own mind as the final test of all truth. Humanistic rationalism is more sophisticated than Baalism, but it is just as idolatrous."
I disagree with the assumption that anyone who doesn't believe the Bible has invented their own belief system so that they could live any way they pleased. He's wrong to assign a self-serving hedonistic motive to religious beliefs other than Christianity. People believe other religions because they were convinced that those religions were right, not (necessarily) because they seek worldly pleasure or independence from God.
I believe Jaeggli also operates under the assumption that all modern people have the truth to begin with and reject it for their own self-delusions, rather than simply being raised under a different worldview/religion. If I'm raised as a Muslim, then of course my religious beliefs are going to be different from the Bible. Does that mean that I invented Islam so that I could live as a hedonist? No, I believe in Islam because that's what I've always been taught and assume to be true. So with evolution: If I'm raised by an atheistic evolutionist, then chances are good that I'm going to be an evolutionist by default, not because I worship my own mind or something.
Indeed, so it is also with Christianity; Christians tend to assume Christianity to be true because that's either A) what they've always believed or B) what they've been convinced of. If it's your goal to convince others of Christianity, it'd probably be best to not make accusations of self-deception because they don't already follow your belief system.
However, since the book’s topic is not idolatry or non-Christian beliefs, I still hold out hope for the quality of the book. The stated purpose of the book is to study the attributes of God as they are revealed in the Bible, rather than following a “systematic theology” as Ryrie does in the other textbook. In other words, this will be a study about God, rather than about the six-syllable words that describe man’s beliefs in God. (Seriously, Ryrie’s discussion on the doctrine of the trinity and all the petty little squabbles over the exact nature of the doctrine makes my head hurt. Apparently factionalism has been a part of Christianity since the late 300’s A.D.. So you’ve got these two guys, Arius and Athanasius, who are arguing over whether Jesus and the Holy Spirit are made of the same substance as God the Father, or a similar substance. This argument escalates until the church has to call a special council to settle the issue. It’s as bad as the KJV-only nonsense going around today.)
Anyways: Fingers are crossed. Here we go.
UPDATE: I've been told that the introduction above came off as kind of sarcastic. It's not supposed to be. Sorry if I gave that impression.
Posted by Blog Jones at October 2, 2004 03:12 PM
| Category: Religion
Well, I think ou have to take the author's comments as generalities, not as being exactly true of every individual in a false religion or who believes in evolution.
John 1:9 says of Jesus, "That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." Every person has some degree of light, and they are responsible for what they do with what they have. Among people in false religions, there are deceivers and deceived. True, some grow up in a certain religion and follow it just because it is what they've always known. But at some point they will have some encounter with truth and will be responsible for whether they go their own way or respond positively to the light they have received.
And I think what he says is true of the inventors of false religions.
Posted by: Barbara H, at October 4, 2004 08:56 AMBut at some point they will have some encounter with truth and will be responsible for whether they go their own way or respond positively to the light they have received.
That's not true. Remember Robert Moffat's famous statement that inspired David Livingstone to become a missionary? "I have sometimes seen in the morning sun the smoke of a thousand villages where no missionary had ever been." If everyone will have some encounter with the truth, then there's no reason to fund missionary efforts.
Now, I totally agree with you on the people who deliberately make up false religions. The Jim Jones/David Koresh types are evil. There's a difference between being a deceiver and being deceived.
Posted by: Blog Jones at October 4, 2004 04:53 PMIt is often *through* those missionary efforts that they are exposed to the light, though. I wasn't saying everyone already has as much truth as they need so no one needs to tell them.
Years ago I read [i]Cowboy Boot on Darkest Africa[/i] by Bill Rice, in which he, in one chapter, described their group coming across a Pygmy tribe. They were enabled to get some food for them, they all had a feast, and they listened to the missionaries preach. Later one of the Pygmy men came up to Bill Rice to ask him more questions, and he commented, "I thought it must be something like that." He described how often he climbed up into a tree, thinking that would bring him physically closer to God, and asked God if He was there and if He heard him and could help him. So, God prepared his heart, and brought the missionary to help show him the way. If in those intial stirrings of his heart, though, he had turned away, denied it, chosen his pagan beliefs over any heart's stirring to another God -- in other words if he had rejected what light he had -- who knows if the Lord would have led the missionaries there? I don't know. Most people do get more than one chance, in God's longsuffering. But it is a dangerous thing to turn away from the light because we don't know or sure if there will be another chance.
I have a Mormon friend online. Despite repeated conversations and verses that clearly show contradictions to what she believes, she doesn't "see" it. Whether the Lord has dealt with her heart at some time and she has turned away fropm that, or he just hasn't lifted the "veil" yet so she can see and understand clearly, I don't know. I am hoping the latter.
But, those kinds of things are what I mean by people having encounters with the truth and having a choice of either accepting it and going on to learn more or rejecting it for the beliefs they already had.
Posted by: Barbara H. at October 5, 2004 03:17 PM