Evidence for God from Science

Some food for thought. Of reformed theologians I find more good nuggets with Tim Keller than many others.

We also thought it was important to begin our confession with God rather than with Scripture. This is significant. The Enlightenment was overconfident about human rationality. Some strands of it assumed it was possible to build systems of thought on unassailable foundations that could be absolutely certain to unaided human reason.

Despite their frequent vilification of the Enlightenment, many conservative evangelicals have nevertheless been shaped by it. This can be seen in how many evangelical statements of faith start with the Scripture, not with God. They proceed from Scripture to doctrine through rigorous exegesis in order to build (what they consider) an absolutely sure, guaranteed-true-to-Scripture theology.

The problem is that this is essentially a foundationalist approach to knowledge. It ignores the degree to which our cultural location affects our interpretation of the Bible, and it assumes a very rigid subject-object distinction. It ignores historical theology, philosophy, and cultural reflection.

Starting with the Scripture leads readers to the over confidence that their exegesis of biblical texts has produced a system of perfect doctrinal truth. This can create pride and rigidity because it may not sufficiently acknowledge the fallenness of human reason.

We believe it is best to start with God, to declare (with John Calvin, Institutes 1.1) that without knowledge of God we cannot know ourselves, our world, or anything else. If there is no God, we would have no reason to trust our reason.

~ D. A. Carson and Timothy Keller, Gospel-Centered Ministry (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011), 6 in Bird, Evangelical Theology, 93, n. 11.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Some food for thought. Of reformed theologians I find more good nuggets with Tim Keller than many others.

We also thought it was important to begin our confession with God rather than with Scripture. This is significant. The Enlightenment was overconfident about human rationality. Some strands of it assumed it was possible to build systems of thought on unassailable foundations that could be absolutely certain to unaided human reason.

Despite their frequent vilification of the Enlightenment, many conservative evangelicals have nevertheless been shaped by it. This can be seen in how many evangelical statements of faith start with the Scripture, not with God. They proceed from Scripture to doctrine through rigorous exegesis in order to build (what they consider) an absolutely sure, guaranteed-true-to-Scripture theology.

The problem is that this is essentially a foundationalist approach to knowledge. It ignores the degree to which our cultural location affects our interpretation of the Bible, and it assumes a very rigid subject-object distinction. It ignores historical theology, philosophy, and cultural reflection.

Starting with the Scripture leads readers to the over confidence that their exegesis of biblical texts has produced a system of perfect doctrinal truth. This can create pride and rigidity because it may not sufficiently acknowledge the fallenness of human reason.

We believe it is best to start with God, to declare (with John Calvin, Institutes 1.1) that without knowledge of God we cannot know ourselves, our world, or anything else. If there is no God, we would have no reason to trust our reason.

~ D. A. Carson and Timothy Keller, Gospel-Centered Ministry (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011), 6 in Bird, Evangelical Theology, 93, n. 11.

Scripture was never meant to take the place of God, of SEEKING God PERSONALLY for a PERSONAL relationship.
It was meant to aid people by pointing towards God.
Scripture is not A book but a combination of books and letters and historical writings and even poetry.

Personally I don't think that any of the scribes that edited and copied the many books and letters in the bible expected to be held to an inerrant and infallible degree.
They were human.

What keeps getting lost though is that even IF the bible was perfect in EVERY way, it would still leave us with IMPERFECT human interpretation AND understanding of the bible.

lets not forget that Jesus corrected the Pharisees and the Saudacees in regards to their understanding and I am sure THEY thought THEY were RIGHT.

Jesus also warned of great deception in the last days plus false teachers and false prophets so that the very elect of God could be deceived and we are in the last days and so we need to look for deception because it is a sign of the end-time that helps point us to the Lord's return. And it greatly bothers me to hear and see Christians who believe what man says is true a lot of times that cannot be backed up with evidence yet it is accepted above God's word which is our only way to know if we've been decieved.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Jesus also warned of great deception in the last days plus false teachers and false prophets so that the very elect of God could be deceived and we are in the last days and so we need to look for deception because it is a sign of the end-time that helps point us to the Lord's return. And it greatly bothers me to hear and see Christians who believe what man says is true a lot of times that cannot be backed up with evidence yet it is accepted above God's word which is our only way to know if we've been decieved.

Oh here we go again.

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Jesus also warned of great deception in the last days plus false teachers and false prophets so that the very elect of God could be deceived and we are in the last days and so we need to look for deception because it is a sign of the end-time that helps point us to the Lord's return. And it greatly bothers me to hear and see Christians who believe what man says is true a lot of times that cannot be backed up with evidence yet it is accepted above God's word which is our only way to know if we've been decieved.

Oh here we go again.

You can spot a false prophet by how much they talk about end times..............................................and how much they talk about their interpretation of scripture is equal to God's word.

The only one around here who is deceived is the one that speaks falsely against his brothers/sisters.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Jesus also warned of great deception in the last days plus false teachers and false prophets so that the very elect of God could be deceived and we are in the last days and so we need to look for deception because it is a sign of the end-time that helps point us to the Lord's return. And it greatly bothers me to hear and see Christians who believe what man says is true a lot of times that cannot be backed up with evidence yet it is accepted above God's word which is our only way to know if we've been decieved.

Oh here we go again.

You can spot a false prophet by how much they talk about end times..............................................and how much they talk about their interpretation of scripture is equal to God's word.

The only one around here who is deceived is the one that speaks falsely against his brothers/sisters.

You think I was talking about you? Why? There is a lot of deception out in our world.It is like you are looking for ways to be offended but I've always said if I'm wrong then show me how and back yourself up with evidence because if what you believe is true and I'm wrong then I would like to know how.It seems you get offended because I don't see things the way you do but instead of showing me why I'm wrong with evidence you are offended by my differing beliefs.Somebody is right and some bodies wrong or maybe we're both wrong but evidence matters more to me than opinions.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Jesus also warned of great deception in the last days plus false teachers and false prophets so that the very elect of God could be deceived and we are in the last days and so we need to look for deception because it is a sign of the end-time that helps point us to the Lord's return. And it greatly bothers me to hear and see Christians who believe what man says is true a lot of times that cannot be backed up with evidence yet it is accepted above God's word which is our only way to know if we've been decieved.

Oh here we go again.

You can spot a false prophet by how much they talk about end times..............................................and how much they talk about their interpretation of scripture is equal to God's word.

The only one around here who is deceived is the one that speaks falsely against his brothers/sisters.

You think I was talking about you? Why? There is a lot of deception out in our world.It is like you are looking for ways to be offended but I've always said if I'm wrong then show me how and back yourself up with evidence because if what you believe is true and I'm wrong then I would like to know how.It seems you get offended because I don't see things the way you do but instead of showing me why I'm wrong with evidence you are offended by my differing beliefs.Somebody is right and some bodies wrong or maybe we're both wrong but evidence matters more to me than opinions.

I am not offended at all, you say things without any proof whatsoever, you just keep spouting off the same nonsense over and over again and I am responding likewise, how is anything you said above addressing the current topic?? If it does have something to do with the OP, then what evidence other than your opinion do you have.

If you don't want silly responses then don't post silly posts.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Jesus also warned of great deception in the last days plus false teachers and false prophets so that the very elect of God could be deceived and we are in the last days and so we need to look for deception because it is a sign of the end-time that helps point us to the Lord's return. And it greatly bothers me to hear and see Christians who believe what man says is true a lot of times that cannot be backed up with evidence yet it is accepted above God's word which is our only way to know if we've been decieved.

Oh here we go again.

You can spot a false prophet by how much they talk about end times..............................................and how much they talk about their interpretation of scripture is equal to God's word.

The only one around here who is deceived is the one that speaks falsely against his brothers/sisters.

You think I was talking about you? Why? There is a lot of deception out in our world.It is like you are looking for ways to be offended but I've always said if I'm wrong then show me how and back yourself up with evidence because if what you believe is true and I'm wrong then I would like to know how.It seems you get offended because I don't see things the way you do but instead of showing me why I'm wrong with evidence you are offended by my differing beliefs.Somebody is right and some bodies wrong or maybe we're both wrong but evidence matters more to me than opinions.

I am not offended at all, you say things without any proof whatsoever, you just keep spouting off the same nonsense over and over again and I am responding likewise, how is anything you said above addressing the current topic?? If it does have something to do with the OP, then what evidence other than your opinion do you have.


If you don't want silly responses then don't post silly posts.

It is addressing the current topic by pointing out what Jesus warned us about in the last days and for us to be aware of great deception in our world in the last days.

abelcainsbrother wrote:It is addressing the current topic by pointing out what Jesus warned us about in the last days and for us to be aware of great deception in our world in the last days.

What deception? What because reformed theology is different from yours it is suddenly deception because you say so? Like I said earlier you equate your interpretation as God's word, good luck with that,


I didn't realise the topic was about end times and deception, must have missed that one.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:It is addressing the current topic by pointing out what Jesus warned us about in the last days and for us to be aware of great deception in our world in the last days.

What deception? What because reformed theology is different from yours it is suddenly deception because you say so? Like I said earlier you equate your interpretation as God's word, good luck with that,


I didn't realise the topic was about end times and deception, must have missed that one.

It does not matter what you or I think it matters what God's word says and I do try to go by God's word.This means I disagree with the persons opinion above so I reminded people about what Jesus warned about in the last days about deception for the person above is telling us we should go by man's truth and not let God's word dictate what we accept as the truth basically to not put scripture first but this sets the person up to be deceived,this person is not willing to repent and has explained the need to repent away so that God's truth cannot get in the way of man's truth.It shows a lack of faith in God's word and instead faith in man's truth.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:It is addressing the current topic by pointing out what Jesus warned us about in the last days and for us to be aware of great deception in our world in the last days.

What deception? What because reformed theology is different from yours it is suddenly deception because you say so? Like I said earlier you equate your interpretation as God's word, good luck with that,


I didn't realise the topic was about end times and deception, must have missed that one.

It does not matter what you or I think it matters what God's word says and I do try to go by God's word.This means I disagree with the persons opinion above so I reminded people about what Jesus warned about in the last days about deception for the person above is telling us we should go by man's truth and not let God's word dictate what we accept as the truth basically to not put scripture first but this sets the person up to be deceived,this person is not willing to repent and has explained the need to repent away so that God's truth cannot get in the way of man's truth.It shows a lack of faith in God's word and instead faith in man's truth.

Yes ACB that's what your interpretation says, but your interpretation is not God's word now is it. We all believe God's word, we just interpret that differently to you, but unlike you we are not deceived to believe that our interpretation is equal to God's word itself.

Anyway sorry Bart for derailing your post, I will stop now as I feel that anyone reading this can see my point with ACB's dogmatic narrow view of scripture.

PaulSacramento wrote:Scripture was never meant to take the place of God, of SEEKING God PERSONALLY for a PERSONAL relationship.
It was meant to aid people by pointing towards God.
Scripture is not A book but a combination of books and letters and historical writings and even poetry.

Personally I don't think that any of the scribes that edited and copied the many books and letters in the bible expected to be held to an inerrant and infallible degree.
They were human.

What keeps getting lost though is that even IF the bible was perfect in EVERY way, it would still leave us with IMPERFECT human interpretation AND understanding of the bible.

lets not forget that Jesus corrected the Pharisees and the Saudacees in regards to their understanding and I am sure THEY thought THEY were RIGHT.

I know what you're trying to get at but I just see it all coming out wrong and many statements here made that I'm not sure who'd believe otherwise?

For example,

"Scripture is not A book but a combination of books and letters and historical writings and even poetry"
Seems obvious, but who says otherwise?

"Personally I don't think that any of the scribes that edited and copied the many books and letters in the bible expected to be held to an inerrant and infallible degree."
Who believes inerrancy pertains to the scribed copies?
Fact is copies and copies means when errors were made -- most grammatical and the like -- we have other copies that can be looked at.
This also allow scholars to identify revisions and edits. Thus, an understanding of what the absolute originally authored text is in fact preserved.
Such that we have a near 100% good idea of what the originally authored texts would have said.

"What keeps getting lost though is that even IF the bible was perfect in EVERY way, it would still leave us with IMPERFECT human interpretation AND understanding of the bible."
That's not in question by any one Evangelical apologist I'm familiar with who would believe in Biblical inerrancy (which seems to me what you are disliking here).

Who or what are you writing against?
I'd really recommend you all read over the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy to pin down what it is you actually disagree with before writing.
Because none of your statements above are contrary to it.

"lets not forget that Jesus corrected the Pharisees and the Saudacees in regards to their understanding and I am sure THEY thought THEY were RIGHT."
This has no real bearing on the issue. Everyone thinks they're right including you here.

At the end of the day, you all (PaulS, Neo, Can, Dan) use Scripture as a source of truth. Why?
Are you not "also" making it into a "god" treating it as such? Why not?
If we believe that God's natural world to be a source of inerrant truth, then is this also placing nature above God?
Why not, if you think considering ALL Scripture as an objective source of truth is?

I'm all for people seeking God, but fact of the matter is, such leads to a wish-wash of beliefs.
This flies in the face of Christ's teachings, if you take them as truly Christ's words, that there is only one Way to the Father -- Christ.
(which again, I'm sure none of you disagree with that Christ is the only way -- for if you did than that isn't really Christianity)
Furthermore, Christ attributes authority to Scripture especially Moses, so do we now negate those as being Christ's words.

So I'm puzzled perhaps about what is necessarily being said of any substance above. No offence intended.
It just seems like is more than meets the eye here. Some knee-jerk reaction being had against some maligned view "inerrantists".

You know (hopefully) I'm most graceful and accepting of Christians whether or not they accept Scripture as fully inerrant or what-have-you.
But, I back my statements above 100% and am happy to go head-to-head in a logical and rational debate regarding Biblical inerrancy.
It perhaps ought to be had at some time -- a debate on biblical inerrancy amongst Christ-loving Christians (non-Christians disallowed because it's not an issue of relevance to them).
I'd appreciate the challenge as I realise that this is perhaps the most non-evidenced based belief I have.

So feel free to rip into someone hopefully of some substance who does believe in inerrancy and not simply divine inspiration (i.e., me).
Who considers themselves a "conservative Evangelical" as Luther, Calvin, Wesley and many others of those times were.
If anyone is up for it... it could only provide greater perspective and hopefully understanding all-round.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Some food for thought. Of reformed theologians I find more good nuggets with Tim Keller than many others.

We also thought it was important to begin our confession with God rather than with Scripture. This is significant. The Enlightenment was overconfident about human rationality. Some strands of it assumed it was possible to build systems of thought on unassailable foundations that could be absolutely certain to unaided human reason.

Despite their frequent vilification of the Enlightenment, many conservative evangelicals have nevertheless been shaped by it. This can be seen in how many evangelical statements of faith start with the Scripture, not with God. They proceed from Scripture to doctrine through rigorous exegesis in order to build (what they consider) an absolutely sure, guaranteed-true-to-Scripture theology.

The problem is that this is essentially a foundationalist approach to knowledge. It ignores the degree to which our cultural location affects our interpretation of the Bible, and it assumes a very rigid subject-object distinction. It ignores historical theology, philosophy, and cultural reflection.

Starting with the Scripture leads readers to the over confidence that their exegesis of biblical texts has produced a system of perfect doctrinal truth. This can create pride and rigidity because it may not sufficiently acknowledge the fallenness of human reason.

We believe it is best to start with God, to declare (with John Calvin, Institutes 1.1) that without knowledge of God we cannot know ourselves, our world, or anything else. If there is no God, we would have no reason to trust our reason.

~ D. A. Carson and Timothy Keller, Gospel-Centered Ministry (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011), 6 in Bird, Evangelical Theology, 93, n. 11.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but again I see many remarks that I'd be hard-pressed to associate with any conservative Evangelical I'd respect.
Luther himself was part of the Enlightenment, so to put blankly, what the f#@k you talking about Keller/Carson? Who rejects the any effect of the Enlightenment when many Christians (conservative by today's standards) were perhaps a part of it. Nuggets? Nuggets that are general statements full of bull$#it. It doesn't follow that because any statements might start with Scripture that any pursuit in epistemology for them starts with such.

And foundationalism? Anyone who reasons accepts some form of foundationalism. Unless you're going to be completely nihilistic. Sorry, but calling BS as I see it. Err, and isn't even starting with God a foundational approach to knowledge? In fact, once you work out Christ is God, then shouldn't one take a Barthian view and start with Christ? Does that mean we ought to look through a lens of God (Theism) or specifically Christ?

To be fair I've not read the full book, so no doubt I don't have the fuller picture, but I'll play the "devil's" advocate here (though by no means)...
And if anyone is offended by my language, then perhaps you are the more uptight "rigid" conservative.
I greatly admire the theology of Luther who apparently swore to no end.

Really, I hope I've offended some into discussion rather than making broad sweeping statements and claps.
And if I'm wrong in how I understand matters re: Enlightenment and Christianity or what-have-you, then so be it.
But present some substance. Maybe Carson provides examples in his book.


Thank God I'm not longer a mod here so I can be my raw self.
I know I'll perhaps regret this post, but... anyway.
You know I love you all regardless.

Kurieuo wrote:At the end of the day, you all (PaulS, Neo, Can, Dan) use Scripture as a source of truth. Why?

Does something have to be inerrant and infallible to divide truth from it? I don't think so.

Are you not "also" making it into a "god" treating it as such? Why not?

Possibly, at the end of the day I just have faith in Christ and the relationship I have with him, I can put the Bible, theology, philosophy and even science aside because it doesn't compare to a real relationship with God himself.

If we believe that God's natural world to be a source of inerrant truth, then is this also placing nature above God?

I don't believe the natural world is inerrant truth or at least our understanding of it, the natural world like scripture can be wrongly interpreted or even corrupted (sin entered the world (what effect did that sin have on nature??) maybe that shaped the evidence to be wrongly interpreted), evolution is a great example, it can still be wrong, I admit that.

Why not, if you think considering ALL Scripture as an objective source of truth is?

I don't think that scripture is not an objective source of truth, it holds many objective truths, but it is still subject to all the associated nuances of being written by humans. I thought that's why Jesus sent his spirit, to guide us, if scripture was infallible, why would we need or require the spirit?