Triadic Reality (a discussion between oldhermit and Kenisis)

[kenisyes]

For example, it does not matter how the Greeks used the word logos within their culture. We should never be concerned with the historian's opinion on the first century cultural use of this word in secular literature.

The trouble with this is that a line needs to be drawn somewhere. The root meanings of words are always determined from culture. "Logos" does not mean a toy set of miniature logs that children can build with. It means "word" in some fashion. If you do not allow input from the culture, you have absolutely nothing. Scripture becomes meaningless symbols, like Egyptian hieroglyphics before the Rosetta stone. Then any translator becomes no better than the Mormon founder Joseph Smith, claiming that a piece of the Book of the Dead is really Hebrew writing documenting the lost tribes living among the Five Nation indians. Somewhere, some group of people (with a pagan, non-revealed culture), have to say "bereshit" means "in the beginning" and not "at the end". So, we need some imput from a more-or-less pagan culture, or no one will understand the written revelation.

This is a line that must be drawn, or I cannot see how we can go on. Without that line, "reading the text" is no better than personal interpretation.

 

[oldhermit]

I really did not expect you to agree with all of these statements at this point. But you are completely right. Language must have a foundation of meaning and we cannot deny that culture defines the definition of words. This is basic. However, as we have already concluded, this in no way inhibits the Holy Spirit from the elevation of human language. I think we can also both agree that it is the context of scripture alone that determines how the use of a selected string of words is to be understood. Let us agree that words have meaning and that grammar has rules that must be followed.

 

[OwenHeidenreich]

History then, cannot be mapped onto revelation to arrive at an understanding of truth. Rather, revelation must be mapped onto historical events to understand how God was working to bring about human redemption.

How does one decide to allow his family to die rather than to renounce Jesus as Lord? Where is the ethic in trading their lives for your convictions? How does one determine the rightness of this behavior? Unless these Christians were able to context their situation in the light of God’s will and design, they could ever have endured such experiences. This revelation from God produced such a confidence in them that the outcome of their faith would not be determined by their circumstances. Without this revelation, they could not know that their experiences of persecution were nothing more than what the apostle Paul clled "light momentary afflictions" when compared to the hope that awaited them in the eternal plain.

fantastic, this applies to everything! WE LIVE BY FAITH NOT BY SIGHT. OUR CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT DECIDE WHO GOD IS OR IS NOT.

It is through the grammatical structure of the text that truth is revealed, not in the historical framework. This fact makes scripture both equidistant and equicultural to all generations. When we approach the text strictly from the historical perspective, we limit the significance of the message to the confines of time and space. This is what happens when man brings human intelligence to bear upon the text rather than allowing the grammatical structure of the text to influence the mind.

THANK GOD HE IS SO AWESOME FOR TEACHING ME THIS SO EARLY ON HIS PATH.

History then, cannot be mapped onto revelation to arrive at an understanding of truth. Rather, revelation must be mapped onto historical events to understand how God was working to bring about human redemption.

This is awesome!

To me, i interpret this arguement as saying "Man could not have slathered on some revelation, or a moral theme, over a certain man's history.

but God must have controlled the biblical history because there is revelation buried in the stories of the Bible."

 

[kenisyes]

I really did not expect you to agree with all of these statements at this point. But you are completely right. Language must have a foundation of meaning and we cannot deny that culture defines the definition of words. This is basic. However, as we have already concluded, this in no way inhibits the Holy Spirit from the elevation of human language. I think we can also both agree that it is the context of scripture alone that determines how the use of a selected string of words is to be understood. Let us agree that words have meaning and that grammar has rules that must be followed.

The point is I do not know how to draw the line. Here's a case. John 1, "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us". "Dwelt" is skenoo. This is the name the early Christians (and Greek Jews) gave to the Feast of Tabernacles, skenatos. They also were quick ot point out that the same word lexically in Hebrew is shekinah, the glory of God. From this, they drew the conclusion that the glory we see (doxa) is in fact the Shekinah glory. This led to an early Christian poem incorporated in a gnostic writing, portraying the descent of the Holy Spirit onto those whose homes had no roofs (as dwellings in the Feast of Tabernacles), the roof being then symbolic of openness of the mind to receive the HS. How many conclusions are we authorized to draw and why? Does this passage prove Jesus and the Father are one, because of the connection of skenoo and shekinah? Does the use of skenatoo authorize the use of the Tabernacle's image?

Another case, "living water". In the Didache, it is a simple way to say flowing river, as opposed to a pool, used in baptism. But this is nowhere implied in any Scriptural text. Are we justified in comparing the two. If we do, we can graft in the "Chebar" of Ezekiel which means the "flowing of time."

 

[oldhermit]

The point is I do not know how to draw the line. Here's a case. John 1, "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us". "Dwelt" is skenoo. This is the name the early Christians (and Greek Jews) gave to the Feast of Tabernacles, skenatos. They also were quick ot point out that the same word lexically in Hebrew is shekinah, the glory of God. From this, they drew the conclusion that the glory we see (doxa) is in fact the Shekinah glory. This led to an early Christian poem incorporated in a gnostic writing, portraying the descent of the Holy Spirit onto those whose homes had no roofs (as dwellings in the Feast of Tabernacles), the roof being then symbolic of openness of the mind to receive the HS. How many conclusions are we authorized to draw and why? Does this passage prove Jesus and the Father are one, because of the connection of skenoo and shekinah? Does the use of skenatoo authorize the use of the Tabernacle's image?

The imagery of tabernacle is quit correct. The word John uses in verse 24 is actually ἐσκήνωσεν which is from σκηνόω and means to dwell as in a tent or as the Hebrew would say, to tabernacle among us which is precisely how the Orthodox Jewish Bible renders the word ἐσκήνωσεν. However the Gnostics may or may not have interpreted the idea seems quite irrelevant. All men ἐσκήνωσεν in this world by means of the fleshly body which serves as the tabernacle or dwelling place of the soul.

Another case, "living water". In the Didache, it is a simple way to say flowing river, as opposed to a pool, used in baptism. But this is nowhere implied in any Scriptural text. Are we justified in comparing the two. If we do, we can graft in the "Chebar" of Ezekiel which means the "flowing of time."

I have not thought much about the use of ζάω here. There is nothing particularly extraordinary about the word in and of itself. It is in the first person singular form which simply translated means "I live." I will have to study on this. This is not the only time Jesus uses this term.

 

[oldhermit]

THE PROBLEM OF DYADIC REASON AND ITS EXPRESSION IN INTERTEXTUALITY

In employing these two terms to the act of Bible reading, dyadic reasoning needs to be understood as man reasoning toward his natural existence on the basis of human intelligence. Triadic reasoning, on the other hand, is man reasoning toward his material existence based on an inspired intelligence. Idolatry as it turns out, is a degenerate triad. Idolatry is man bringing human intelligence to bear on the will and power of God and reassigning it to a false point of causation. Cosmic evolution would certainly fall within this category of dyadic reasoning.

Historically, men have employed a dyadic structure of reasoning in the exercise of Biblical interpretation. The world uses a hierarchical structure of human intelligence that we call the nine fields of inquiry to compile information about the Biblical text as it is fitted within the framework of these nine fields. All human knowledge is catalogued within these nine fields. This type of textual approach appeals to the respective fields of inquiry to see what each of these have to say about the text of scripture. The world feels that it is somehow important to know what the scientist, the historian, the clergy, the legal apparatus and others have to say about the value and place of scripture within the human community. This form if intertextuality regards scripture as only one of many texts that is subordinate to human analysis based on all other texts. The practice of intertextuality places the Word of God within the dyadic structure of human intelligence. This elevates human intelligence over the inspired intelligence of revelation. The world will never allow the Bible to be regarded as the single hierarchical text that brings all others into subjection to itself. This of course is not a new problem. We see this same human tendency throughout the Bible. The Pharisees regarded the Law only within the context of centuries of rabbinic interpretation. It was because the Jews were so dyadic in their thinking that Jesus constantly had to correct their corrupted understanding of the Law. They had elevated their traditionally imposed interpretation above the language of text and Jesus said that in doing so, they had made the Word of God null and void. When I consider the way we have approached the Biblical text, it becomes increasingly apparent that the Church has done the very same thing that the Jews of the first century had done.

The world will not allow us to say openly that certain socially accepted values are wrong. We are not allowed to pass judgment on the behavior of the world or to impose Biblical standards of moral conduct upon others. We are told that others have things of to offer, that other religions and their texts should also be given equal or even greater consideration. The world would ask "who are you to say your way of thinking is right and everyone else is wrong?" When we refuse to consider other religious or secular points of view that are based in human intelligence we are considered idiosyncratic, arrogant and closed minded. We cannot say that homosexuality is perversion and sinful, after all, one might say, when the Bible was written people were unaware that tendencies toward homosexuality were the result of hormonal deficiencies determined at one's birth, after all, God loves everyone and would not condemn someone who was born this way. These questions make certain assumptions about the origin and authority of scripture. Such thinking will not permit the Bible to be accepted as a uniquely legitimate standard for determining human behavior. This renders God and scripture as context dependent. The world demands that God must only be defined based on the human frame of reference within the material context. Ideas about the personality of God then become subject to anthropomorphism. Rather than desiring to be like the Creator, we create a god in our own image. This is the very root of idolatry.

 

[kenisyes]

The imagery of tabernacle is quit correct. The word John uses in verse 24 is actually ἐσκήνωσεν which is from σκηνόω and means to dwell as in a tent or as the Hebrew would say, to tabernacle among us which is precisely how the Orthodox Jewish Bible renders the word ἐσκήνωσεν. However the Gnostics may or may not have interpreted the idea seems quite irrelevant. All men ἐσκήνωσεν in this world by means of the fleshly body which serves as the tabernacle or dwelling place of the soul.



I have not thought much about the use of ζάω here. There is nothing particularly extraordinary about the word in and of itself. It is in the first person singular form which simply translated means "I live." I will have to study on this. This is not the only time Jesus uses this term.

Your opinions are duly noted, and welcome and respected. However, what does your grammatical system say about them? Do we accept those usages, or must we rule them out, because they are of the authorship of first century extra-Scripture Christianity (the didache) or of heretics (the business about having no roof)? Is it valid, or not, to teach those interpretations?

 

[oldhermit]

Your opinions are duly noted, and welcome and respected. However, what does your grammatical system say about them? Do we accept those usages, or must we rule them out, because they are of the authorship of first century extra-Scripture Christianity (the didache) or of heretics (the business about having no roof)? Is it valid, or not, to teach those interpretations?

I am not really sure I understand you question. The translation of σκηνόω does not originate with the didache nor with the Gnostics. The idea is rooted in the Old Testament typology. Abraham tabernacling in the land, God tabernacling among his people by meant of the tent of meeting. It all presented the idea of temporary status. Jesus, having tabernacle among us by means of the flesh was certainly a temporary status. In 2 Cor. 5:4, Paul says, "For indeed while we are in this tent (σκήνει), we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life."

 

[kenisyes]

I am not really sure I understand you question. The translation of σκηνόω does not originate with the didache nor with the Gnostics. The idea is rooted in the Old Testament typology. Abraham tabernacling in the land, God tabernacling among his people by meant of the tent of meeting. It all presented the idea of temporary status. Jesus, having tabernacle among us by means of the flesh was certainly a temporary status. In 2 Cor. 5:4, Paul says, "For indeed while we are in this tent (σκήνει), we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life."

Let me try to be more specific. Scripture itself uses the word skenatos, and derivations thereof, about Jesus'. The word already means tabernacle, dwelling, and due to Paul's use, our body. John 7:2, etc. also add the meaning of the Feast of Tabernacles to it. That is the end of the meaning in the Scriptures. The Talmud tells us the tabernacle had no roof, so that the glory of God might be visible in the daytime. The gnostic writing states that the Holy Spirit looks for people to descend on because their houses have no roofs.

Your system states that we must obtain knowledge about a word from Scripture only and not from other pagan sources avaiable at the same time. I wonder where you draw the line. In your system, must I stop understanding the word skena to apply to the openness of the person to receive the fulness of the Holy Spirit, or not. The only source I have to make the extensions is extra-Biblical, requiring both the Talmud and the gnostics.

 

[oldhermit]

Let me try to be more specific. Scripture itself uses the word skenatos, and derivations thereof, about Jesus'. The word already means tabernacle, dwelling, and due to Paul's use, our body. John 7:2, etc. also add the meaning of the Feast of Tabernacles to it. That is the end of the meaning in the Scriptures. The Talmud tells us the tabernacle had no roof, so that the glory of God might be visible in the daytime. The gnostic writing states that the Holy Spirit looks for people to descend on because their houses have no roofs.

Your system states that we must obtain knowledge about a word from Scripture only and not from other pagan sources avaiable at the same time. I wonder where you draw the line. In your system, must I stop understanding the word skena to apply to the openness of the person to receive the fulness of the Holy Spirit, or not.

What you are talking about is intertextuality. i.e. Can we use the Talmud and Gnostic writings to shed light on the use of scripture? The answer is of course NO! I cover this in the post on intertextuality. Even if one could find some secular writing that specifically renders this definition to σκηνόω makes no difference. Scripture never seems to use this word in this way. It just means tent or tabernacle with or withouta roof.

The only source I have to make the extensions is extra-Biblical, requiring both the Talmud and the gnostics.

All the Gnostics are doing is taking the fact of the O.T. temple having no roof and trying to make a connection between that and their stressed importance of the search for superior knowledge. This has nothing to do with the basic definition of the word. They understood the word as having the same meaning - tabernacle or tent; that does not give credence to their doctrine. Simply because a pagan society understands the basic definition of a particular word the same way it seems to be stressed in scripture does not give them anything in common with Christianity nor does it suggest that we should allow their text to be brought to bear on the text of scripture. See the post on intertextuality.

 

[kenisyes]

That sets the boundary for me. We may use any definition of the word used by the Scriptural context and no others. Does that sound right?

 

[oldhermit]

That sets the boundary for me. We may use any definition of the word used by the Scriptural context and no others. Does that sound right?

Yes. However, this does not mean that sometimes I do not wind up with more questions than I have answers for. Just take the word τέλειος for example; the word can mean flawless in character, mature either in body or mind, and complete, and all three definitions are found to be used in scripture. How do we determine the correct definition? Sometimes it may not always be so clear in the context. But, the last thing we want to do is to appeal to the secular world for clarification.

 

[kenisyes]

And I especially hate the generalization to the modern concept of "end of the world", which demands that we supply a calendar date, instead of the "state of affairs" implied by the Scriptural usage.

 

[oldhermit]

Do you have any questions over DYADIC REASON AND ITS EXPRESSION IN INTERTEXTUALITY?

 

[kenisyes]

No, that's clear. You're just saying it has to be God's thoughts and His channel of communication (thus 3 counting us as receivers), not our thoughts or our way of communcating (thus eliminating one of the three). The same problem has existed in hymnology for centuries, as the pslams were sung with melodies that some argue were inspired, and then lost. Then, further the texts were translated to Greek (once a melodic language) and then other languages, losing the meloic, rhythmic, and even inspirational flow. There are more than a dozen schools of thought trying to replace the "inspiriation" with a satisfactory level of "human thought" and the arguments one way and another have been thoroughly documented.

 

[oldhermit]

One of the most popular ways to attempt to challenge the authority of the biblical text is to claim that everything that was ever inspired has not all been preserved and this is true. People do this in attempt to either add to the text or to find something that they feel will give credence to whatever ideas they wish to promote. However, the truth of this claim takes nothing away from what has been preserved for us. God preserved what he wished to preserve. Man is nothing more than an incidental in the process of that preservation. As 2Peter 1:3 affirms, "Seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence." Why does man fell it necessary to second guess God in this?

 

[kenisyes]

You said it yourself. It is an assumption of the theory that "all the verbal revelation God wished to give us is in the Bible as have it". If we do not have the whole thing, that assumption can be challenged by the fact that there is more. Also, the statement, if accepted as stated, does not prove that there is non-verbal revelation. Just read the words of the song "How Great Thou Art" for examples.

I'm sure you realize we learn language by having the experience first, then learning the matching word. It is possible to read into the theory that we are to learn from God before we have the experience. That is something for which we have no other model.

 

[oldhermit]

You said it yourself. It is an assumption of the theory that "all the verbal revelation God wished to give us is in the Bible as have it". If we do not have the whole thing, that assumption can be challenged by the fact that there is more. Also, the statement, if accepted as stated, does not prove that there is non-verbal revelation. Just read the words of the song "How Great Thou Art" for examples

.

I'm sure you realize we learn language by having the experience first, then learning the matching word.

This is certainly true. One must be able to conceptualize an object or an idea before meaning can be linked to the word that represents it.

It is possible to read into the theory that we are to learn from God before we have the experience. That is something for which we have no other model

.

What experience are you talking about?

 

[kenisyes]

I mean the experience of the topic that we are reading today in the Bible.

I'll give you an example. A baby does not learn the word milk until after he has tasted milk. The kid learns to play baseball long before he learns ERA and shutouts, etc. That is normal. Compare this: Look how many teenagers are confused about sex because they hear about it many years before they marry. Or how many try drugs just because they are warned not to. That is the danger of words before experience.

With the bible, we sort of hand it to people and say "here is God's teaching to us". No matter how hard a pastor tries, he can't possibly stay ahead of 1100 pages in various translations and the possible misreadings. We are being given the words "so that the man of God may be thoroughly furnished for every good work" when each of us need only furnishing for the good works to which we are called. The extra training can cause confusion, and often does. Like, even 60 year olds (look at the recent thread) in good marriages debate what "adultery in their heart" means. We got the words before we got the experience.

 

[oldhermit]

I mean the experience of the topic that we are reading today in the Bible.

I'll give you an example. A baby does not learn the word milk until after he has tasted milk. The kid learns to play baseball long before he learns ERA and shutouts, etc. That is normal. Compare this: Look how many teenagers are confused about sex because they hear about it many years before they marry. Or how many try drugs just because they are warned not to. That is the danger of words before experience.

With the bible, we sort of hand it to people and say "here is God's teaching to us". No matter how hard a pastor tries, he can't possibly stay ahead of 1100 pages in various translations and the possible misreadings. We are being given the words "so that the man of God may be thoroughly furnished for every good work" when each of us need only furnishing for the good works to which we are called. The extra training can cause confusion, and often does. Like, even 60 year olds (look at the recent thread) in good marriages debate what "adultery in their heart" means. We got the words before we got the experience.

Yes, I agree.

If you are ready, I would like now to introduce to concept of non-linear reality.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]WE LIVE IN A NON-LINEAR WORLD[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
I would like to take a moment to talk about the concept of non-linear reality. What is generally regarded as reality is confined to those things that are accessible to empirical observation. We have a tendency to confine reality to only those things that can be observed, measured, and studied. Scripture shows us however, that reality extends beyond the simple fragile limitations of the physical dimension. Reality is a union of two parts. There is the temporal part of reality that is available to human empirical observation and the eternal, unobservable part of reality that exists beyond the realm of human accessibility. These two dimensions of reality are only separated from the standpoint of human limitations. While it is impossible for man to look into that part of reality, it is clear from scripture that the visible is always contingent upon the eternal. This veil of inaccessibility separates man from that world, not God from this world.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Our bodies are so order by the Creator that we must depend upon our five senses to tell us certain truths about our world. This is well and good because these things allow us to function within the confines of our natural surroundings. Our senses allow us to protect ourselves from potential harm. For example, I do not stick my hand in the fire because I know that fire is painfully destructive to human tissue. I do not walk off the top of a twenty-story building because I know that the impact at the bottom will undoubtedly be fatal. I do not knowingly step out in front of a speeding vehicle because I know there is a determined relationship between my body and mass in motion that does not work in my favor. These facts are certainly real and cannot simply be ignored. I trust my senses to warn me of potentially dangerous situations in everyday experiences. Our senses also allow us to enjoy the comforts, beauty, and pleasures of the world that God has given us. When any one of our senses becomes impaired or ceases to function, we lose that part of our connection to the world around us. Our senses are instilled within each of us by the Creator and are indeed a necessary component of our material existence. We cannot however, trust our five senses to tell us [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]all [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]the truth about reality. My senses do not tell me that the power of God manipulates, overrules, and overturns natural processes. I can only know this from revelation. Scripture shows us that in human history, God has repeatedly contravened and overturned established determined relations, which we generally refer to as “laws” of nature. By its very nature, the idea of law suggests something that cannot be countermanded or violated without consequence. This is how we understand what we regard as “natural laws,” but just what is law? [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
John Barrow set forth five possible views of how we should understand the relationship between the universe and natural laws. I will not take the time to go into each of these points individually. I only want to make you aware of them if you aren't already. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
In his first possibility, Barrow suggested that law is preexistent and stands outside the natural universe. His second possibility says that the universe is preexistent and law exists only as a product of rational human invention. What he means by this is that the concept of law is man's attempt to explain a set of observable regularities and answer the question of causation. His third possibility is that law and the universe are contiguous regularities in time and space. In other words, both law and the universe have always co-existed in an eternal relationship. His fourth possibility suggests that the universe is all there is and that law is nonexistent. His fifth possibility (and the most absurd) suggests that law is all there is and that the universe is actually nonexistent. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
If revelation is true concerning the nature of the universe, then all things on the natural side of reality owes its existence exclusively to the presence, power, and reality of God. [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Matter has no power to exist in and of its self, nor does the universe have within it the power to establish laws to govern its behavior. Law is an abstract and by its very nature requires the presence of a dependent entity upon which to act, something outside of itself that is dependent upon its power to govern. Without something upon which to act, would not law then cease to be law? If such a law existed before and outside of the universe it would, of necessity, exist in a vacuum. I maintain this is not possible. I would have to insist that, apart from the existence of God there can be no law. Law can only exist as a means to establish order and organization for something that is concrete. Law requires the function of an administrator to enforce it. Since law has no power to create something beyond itself, there must be a power beyond law that is causative. Since the universe and universal law cannot exist apart from one another, neither can be causative of the other. This means that natural law must be subordinate to powers that are beyond itself. Law is neither self-existing nor self-sustaining. What man generally considers as “laws of nature” exist not as laws but rather as a set of determined relations that allow man to function within the confines of the natural world. It is a mistake to think that man can come to an accurate understanding of the universe on his own terms through a rational observation of his experiences within it.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Rationality depends upon the consistency of observable regularities. For example, I know that every time I throw a rock into the air it will inevitably come down because it always has. It has never just stopped in mid-air. Any expectation that these “laws” can be overturned is generally regarded as irrational and not to be given serious consideration. Yet, scripture is replete with examples of the “irrational.” It is not rational to believe that three men can be thrown into a furnace of fire for an extended period and emerge unharmed and with not even so much as the smell of smoke on them, Daniel 3:24-27. It is patently absurd to believe that the earth can suddenly and instantaneously cease its rotational pattern for several hours without dramatically disturbing gravitational forces, Joshua 10:12-14. There is nothing in our experience within the field of human biology to suggest that a virgin can conceive a child or that someone who had been dead and entombed for four days can be raised simply by verbal command to rejoin the living. All of these examples are certainly inconsistent with our experience in observable regularities. These things cannot be rationalized based upon natural processes. What these things serve to demonstrate is that God is not constrained by natural process. Nor is the universe governed by such. We live in a non-linear reality because our world does not exist as a closed system. Reality is made up of the natural world that surrounds us and the world of the unseen that is hidden from us. Our world is governed and controlled by powers that are outside of our normal
field of observation. If man is to properly context his world of experience, he must learn to link what he can see to the reality and the power of God whom he cannot see. We can only u[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]nderstand this relationship when we learn to revere scripture as the surface form of absolute intelligence. Scripture exists as a bridge or index that links us to the absolute intelligence of God. As a linguistic representation, the inspired text reveals a mind that is not accessible to us by any other means. Properly understanding our world is completely contingent upon our first, recognizing the supreme intelligence of God, and secondly honoring scripture as the surface form of that intelligence.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]When we approach the text of scripture in just this way, we find that certain conclusions about Barrow’s five possibilities must be recognized.
1) All of his possibilities are dependent upon natural process.
2) He places causation strictly within the natural realm. 3
3) Absolute intelligence, which is demonstrated in the power to govern, control and organize, is somehow the product of material reality.
4) He divorces causation from any external source of intelligence. When we attempt to rationalize creation based on our own understand of the natural world, no matter how educated one's analysis may be, we will invariably come to the wrong conclusions about creation. If we want to understand the point of causation, we must defer to the one who framed creation and then provided us an inspired written record of that event. [/FONT]