<quote>

Scientists disagree about interpretations of observations. Based on their interpretation of observations, some scientists assume there was no Creation event or worldwide catastrophic Flood event. However, other scientists interpret the same observations and decide the Creation and worldwide catastrophic Flood events took place. So scientists with the same training, using the same observations, propose different theories of origins. Horrors!

Those who worship scientists get upset that some scientists disagree with the majority. They think those who disagree with the majority have lost touch with reality and aren’t “real scientists.” On the other side are those who are just as amazed that anyone could disagree with the scientific interpretation that agrees with Scripture. Those on each side stand amazed that the others are so thickheaded. This divide illustrates the great debate between scientists, a debate that’s caused by different methods of reasoning rather than different observations.

The difference is in the interpretation of evidence. We interpret, but groupthink, worldviews, peer pressure, assumptions, presuppositions, and divine revelation influence our judgment. Often, we listen to the loudest voice or the one that agrees with what we’ve always thought. Our brute-beast minds find something that seems to work and settle on this pragmatic solution even when our choice isn’t the best.

</end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this book yet?

Get your free copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_1_-_Scientia.pdf

Book Review of a Book Related to Science, Evolution, Creation, Scriptural Authority, and the Realness of God

Review: Studies in the Book of Ecclesiastes by Mike Viccary

Studies in the Book of Ecclesiastes is a structured investigation of the entire book of Ecclesiastes, comparing it to Song of Solomon, Proverbs, New Testament Scripture, and more. Mike takes a book that many have avoided or thought to be negative and explains that the viewpoint is from one who is under the sun. The term “under the sun” refers to one who has a materialistic or deistic view of God. It would refer to what I would call a naturalistic Christian. It would refer to the old-earth dogmatist and the evolutionist. Mike shows how Ecclesiastes shows the limitations of the mind that has no real relationship with Christ. The book is well-written, easy to be understood, and can be read in an evening or two. You may want to take the time to study it after your initial reading. I’ll include a quote that’s longer than my review since it seems to me that this succinct quote sums up the point of the entire book.

“One of the greatest freeing moments in my life was to realise that my pursuit of truth was never going to succeed until I grasped that it wasn’t a theory, nor a system, nor a scheme that would do the trick, but a person. The realisation that Christ Jesus was not just a person in history, but the One who came from heaven, died for sins, was raised to new life and then ascended into heaven for all eternity was stunning. This moment started my relationship with God. That theme (relationship with God) is the subject of the Song of Songs. However I do not feel capable, nor at liberty, to speak on such a high subject. My life and path have been a testimony to the insufficiency of modern science (and of all man’s thoughts), and to the abundance of God’s goodness in and through His word by the power of the Holy Spirit.”

The book is free to download at this address: https://www.mikeviccary.com/studies-in-ecclesiastes

<quote>

Our gracious Heavenly Father, we bow before You in submission. Lord, we desire to do Your will. We thank You for the many promises that You make to us as You speak through Scripture. You have promised that You won’t give us something other than the Holy Spirit when we ask for the Holy Spirit. You have promised that we’ll know the words that come from You if we truly desire to do Your will. For that reason, we pray that You give us the desire to do Your will and the power to do Your will. Amen.

</end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this book yet?

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_1_-_Scientia.pdf

<quote>
Stories about evolution and the age of the earth get labeled “science,” but naturalism is also labeled “science,” and naturalism eliminates God. . . .

When we read Scripture, we’re interacting with the Almighty. As we read the Bible, God tells us that He reveals reality using methods other than the Bible. We’ve just considered the example of this revelation in the first chapter of Romans. True science is revelation, and true science never contradicts Scripture.

Even so, speculations of scientists and theologians often contradict Scripture because speculation is just made-up stuff. The Holy Spirit is our teacher, and God reveals and confirms this fact through Scripture and experience. And this revelation is good news since, given the problem the human mind has in proving that a premise is true, sound reason can never consist of a cold, lifeless, intellectual exercise. Truth always directly involves Jesus. He is Truth, and outside of His presence, there’s no true knowledge as we shall see.

“Hearing from God may be mocked by some like Joy Behar, but it is nothing new and it’s definitely not mental illness as she said. The Bible is full of examples of people hearing from God. Jesus said, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” (John 10:27). Those who have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ know what this means. I’m thankful that today He still speaks to us through His Word and through His Holy Spirit working in our lives. Aren’t you?” (Franklin Graham)

If we were to try to deny the methods of revelation God mentions through the Bible, our denial would be extra-biblical. The Bible doesn’t deny those methods. Instead, the Bible refutes such a denial since it lays out several ways that God reveals besides speaking to us through the Bible. Therefore, if we were to assert that God reveals only through Scripture, we would be making an extra-biblical assertion in conflict with Scripture. Besides, we would be claiming that no one could know Christ. We would be saying the Holy Spirit doesn’t lead anyone in this daily walk.

Counterfeits of divine revelation exist. So what’s the issue? By being too broadly defined, the term “extra-biblical” confuses us, so we need a term more specific than “extra-biblical.” When God spoke to Paul, it was extra-biblical but not in conflict with Scripture. Still, some extra-biblical doctrines conflict with Scripture, and the conflict with Scripture shows these extra-biblical doctrines are false.

Similarly, some extra-biblical doctrines add speculative interpretations to Scripture from the fallen sarx mind. Even if they don’t conflict with Scripture, they violate God’s command not to add to His words or to diminish His words. And as long as we’re going down this path, it might be good to remember humans aren’t the only ones who make up stuff. Demons also lie, which is another form of made-up stuff. Satan even used Scripture to tempt Christ, but Christ easily detected the deception just as Christ in you can detect deception.

Despite these errors, God can say things not specifically laid out in Scripture. For instance, God can lead a man to choose the right wife, or God the Father can draw an atheist to Christ by speaking directly to his conscience or through a Christian’s example. The Holy Spirit can tell a Christian to apologize to a friend she offended. Such leading is technically extra-biblical. However, God commands us to seek His leading. Therefore, we need this form of extra-biblical knowledge. Since the term “extra-biblical” can mean both good and evil, it’s not a helpful term, so we’ll consider the difference between made-up stuff and divine revelation. The dichotomy between made-up stuff and divine revelation is more meaningful than the term “extra-biblical.”

Something being extra-biblical isn’t necessarily wrong or evil, but making up stuff and calling the made-up stuff true is evil. It’s a lie, and lies are an abomination to God. We can easily see the problem with making theological claims that require adding made-up stuff to Scripture. And some extra-biblical doctrines originate in assumption-based interpretations of the Bible.
</end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this book yet?

Get your free copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.
http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_1_-_Scientia.pdf

<quote>
“On the one hand, it is true that modern science does not require a person to be a Christian: it recognizes a general human condition, according to which the procedures and results of science must be accessible to any competent investigator, regardless of ideological or religious persuasion. So it is fair to say that practicing science does not require one to see science as a vocation. But on the other hand, those scientists who are Christian lose a great deal when they are trained to see their work merely as a profession. Indeed, as Nancy Pearcey has argued, these scientists often experience considerable internal confl¬ict, because they do not see how to relate their life as a Christian with their work as a scientist.” (The Intersection of Science & Christian Theology)

When we go out to do our work, we’ll be more successful and satisfied if we take Christ with us to our work. Why not make use of knowing the Person Who has all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding? Why not develop that relationship through open communication with the only counselor, teacher, and leader who knows all things?

“A Christ against culture approach is liable to reject at least some of science on the grounds that its assumptions, aims, practices, and claims conflict with allegiance to Christ and His Word. At a moderate level, this might involve refusing to seriously evaluate or use particular statements, theories, and technologies. A more extreme reaction would be to reject the work and institutions of science altogether as idolatrous and godless diversions from Christ. Either way, it is likely that Christians with this perspective will feel uncomfortable about scientific work and this will disincline them to pursue science as a vocation.” (The Intersection of Science & Christian Theology)

The culture is the world. This quote isn’t condoning being a friend of the world since God tells us that whoever is a friend of the world is an enemy of God. We aren’t of the culture, but we’re in the culture. We influence the culture for Christ. We recognize that God has revealed some knowledge to people who deny Christ, and we can learn from them. However, we know that they can only function at the brute-beast level, and they know it too. When they begin to speak about things like history, the future, morality, epistemology, or ontology, they’re out of their league. We may want to be gentle if we have to tell them that, but we need to remember that they don’t have a basis for rational thought.

“Evolution is just as religious as Creation because both views require faith on the part of their adherents. No one saw God create the universe, and no one saw the “big bang” occur. Both views are religious as far as origins are concerned.” (Fables and Facts about Creation and Evolution)
</end quote>
#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this book yet?

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_1_-_Scientia.pdf

<quote>
The atheist and the proud Christian often try to take God’s position. But those who are humble receive God’s blessing and revelation. Science is tentative. God is absolute. Our knowledge, as Christ-followers, is partial and imperfect. However, the Holy Spirit is teaching us, leading us, and correcting us as we travel toward the finish line.

“First, we live at particular locations in space and time and our attempts to reconstruct the past and to anticipate the future are fraught with uncertainty.” (The Intersection of Science & Christian Theology)

…We aren’t looking at a problem with science but rather a problem with pseudoscience. It’s a problem of the brute-beast, human mind trying to reason beyond the five senses without divine revelation.
</end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this book yet?

Get your free copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.
http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_1_-_Scientia.pdf

This is a quote from Real Faith & Reason, but you’ll see that it’s a series of quotes by others on the subject of divine revelation.

<quote>
“The idea that God might authoritatively reveal the truth of Himself to us from above is rejected in favor of a pragmatic theology from below, which does not see religion as a matter of truth at all.” (The Intersection of Science & Christian Theology)

“What is needed instead is an epistemology of the cross, which accepts the creaturely limitations of all our mental constructs and humbly receives illumination from above through faith in Christ and His Word.” (The Intersection of Science & Christian Theology)

“No longer are we just acknowledging a being who exists outside of our ability to define, but we are going to double down by acting on the guidance and authority of a divine being whose primary method of communication is through my own subjective experience. As a matter of fact, the more I relinquish authority and control to this divine being through obedience to His written word and supernatural personal communication, the more I come into contact with His presence at work in my life and the lives of those around me.” (Dirk Bartkoski)

God does reveal Himself to us. Christ lives within and reveals reality through science and other means. Of course, we need to define “science” carefully. We’ll explore the ways God reveals Himself and all reality to us as we continue our journey.

“How do I walk between believing in what I cannot prove and the pursuit of proof for all that I believe? How do I navigate the paradoxes of science and Pentecostalism? It starts with a heavy dose of humility. From the very beginning of Genesis, the story of humankind is the story of humanity’s pursuit to be equal to God. Even if we were to understand all the physical laws that govern this universe, many of the fundamental physical processes we do understand exist as continuums of probability which inherently limits our pursuit of omniscience.” (Dirk Bartkoski)

“I believe this universe is designed to reveal God to those who are willing to remove themselves from His position.” (Dirk Bartkoski)
</end quote>
#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this book yet?

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_1_-_Scientia.pdf

<quote>

God reveals reality, and He reveals it to scientists, non-scientists, unbelievers, and believers. In the same way, He’s been revealing reality since the day of Creation, and now He just keeps unfolding revelation as quickly as we embrace it. Consider the following quotes from “In Christ All Things Hold Together, The Intersection of Science & Christian Theology”:

“To be sure, the fact that Scripture is supreme in its authority, and the only source and norm for orthodox Christian doctrine, does not mean we are always correct in interpreting Scripture. So it can seem (and may sometimes be) reasonable to consider whether some alternative ways of reading Scripture might make it easier to accept some apparently well-confirmed claim of science. And yet there are dangers here all the same. One of these is the unstated assumption that the best science is on the same level as the Word of God. The problem is that God’s Word has an eternal and ultimate validity, while even the best scientific theories are the products of finite, fallen minds and have at most a temporal and penultimate status. A marriage between the eternal Word of God and temporal science is apt to produce a widow as the science changes.”

“It is unwise to rely on fallible conjectures that may tomorrow be consigned to the dustbin of science, in order to give the final seal of veracity on Scripture’s claims.”

“Simply joining Christianity with the latest and greatest scientific theory is a bad idea because it creates the false sense that the authority of the Word rests on that theory.”

“It is precisely because Christians have a place to stand, on Christ, who is ‘the same yesterday and today and forever’ (Heb. 13:8), that they do not have to lean on their own understanding (Prov. 3:5–6), including science, as a place for final answers. As Veith argues, this actually frees Christians to be both more skeptical and more open-minded toward the world’s ideas than the secularist.”

“The controlling idea for the New Atheist or opponents of biblical Christianity is that what we should believe about God is defined by what science has revealed . . .”

God can teach us a lesson through history. Historically, what was called “solid science” has died. If we, as Christians, become dogmatic about any scientific notion of the day, we may project that dogmatism to those around us. Since people know we’re followers of Christ, they have trouble seeing the dividing line between Christ and our dogmatic notion. When the notion is proved false, Satan uses that scientific failure to say that Christ has been proved false or that the Bible has been proved false.

</end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this book yet?

Get your free copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_1_-_Scientia.pdf

<quote>

By revelation, we know that God reveals reality through the Bible and every method He mentions in the Bible. And, as we just read in Romans 1, God reveals “through what has been made . . . being understood by the things made.” The revelation in this Scripture is one way we know that God reveals reality through scientific observation of the things God has created. In contrast to what some believe, we don’t have to figure out this revelation from observation. Otherwise, this Scripture would read, “for they should be able to figure it out,” but God didn’t say that. Instead, it says, “for God has revealed it to them.”

In the original Greek, this Scripture uses the word “phaneroo.” It says, “for God has phaneroo them.” This word “phaneroo” is translated as “showed,” “manifested,” “shewed,” “made it clear,” “showed,” “revealed,” or “made it evident.” The lexicon gives this definition: “to make manifest or visible or known what has been hidden or unknown, to manifest, whether by words, deeds, or in any other way.”

</end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this book yet?

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_1_-_Scientia.pdf

<quote>

Some theologians have chosen to deal with the conflict between ungodly scientific speculation and Scripture by putting science and religion into separate compartments. They compartmentalize thinking. When they think about theology, they use one set of assumptions and one authority. When they think about science, they use a different set of assumptions and a different authority.

By keeping each of these compartments separate, they don’t have to deal with the conflicting claims in their worldviews. When they’re with their ungodly friends, they reason from the ungodly side of their worldview. When they’re with people of their denomination (or non-denomination or pre-denomination), they reason from the religious side of their worldview. Ne’er the twain shall meet. This thinking isn’t healthy or necessary since no observation of science conflicts with Scripture. Human assumptions can make Scripture appear to conflict with scientific observation, but no such conflict exists.

</end quote>

#RealFaith&Reason

Have you read this book yet?

http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_1_-_Scientia.pdf