God Rules

The Scriptures Verify the Creator's Authority and Humanity's Accountability

The book of Genesis is the source for the Christian belief system and the basis for a biblical worldview. For no other reason than that, everyone who has an influential position among others ought to study, comprehend, and engage the message of this book of beginnings. Genesis tells us that God rules over His creation. What then is man’s role? And how does this impact our worship?

God Rules

God Rules

As far as Genesis is concerned, the heart of the issue is authority. Is the Bible trustworthy or not? More importantly, is the Author of the Bible—God—trustworthy or not? If so, then God is supremely and exclusively authoritative on all matters about which He writes. If God is the Author of all truth and no untruth, then the very text of Scripture is purposefully and supernaturally inspired and trustworthy, even on matters of science.

The Scriptures are consistent.

God verifies, augments, describes, and cites His creative power without alteration throughout the Bible. Anyone who reads the record of Genesis understands what is written. The words and phrases are not at all complex to grasp, but they do require belief—for those words describe and present a Being whose power is limitless and whose knowledge is all-encompassing.

Neither you nor I can experience such a condition, and therefore we must either accept (believe) that there is an all-powerful and all-knowing God, transcendent to the universe, who is the First Cause of all things, or we must reject the existence of such a Being and retreat into our own experience and intelligence. Mankind, when confronted with that truth, must decide whether he will submit to the Author of that truth or reject both that truth and the Source of that truth—the Creator-God. There is no logical middle ground.

The bottom line, of course, is who rules? God? Or man?

If God—the One who could speak the universe into existence with a command—is indeed the Creator, then He is the Owner of all that exists. Man is, therefore, a steward (rather than an owner) and is ultimately accountable to the Owner for all that is done with life and resources.

Question: Do you truly believe God rules over His creation? How does this change your worship? You can leave a comment by clicking here.

Why is Genesis important? Here’s a free resource for further study:

why origins are important - God rules

Save

Save

Save

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive or off-topic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

3 thoughts on “God Rules

  1. It is, indeed, correct to say that Genesis 1:1 addresses cosmological physics, or what I lie to call the ‘trivially universal’ instance of physics. But this is correct *already* on the implicit level, and therefore need not by the *explicit* meaning of the verse.

    So God is in the details, and thereby in the Big Picture. He created a comprehensible cosmos, not a bag of mutually alien whatnots. This is how the subject of land mass inherently suggests both mere matter and the entire planet. These three subjects inherently are mutually suggestive.

    But the questions are: (1) which of these three mutually suggestive subjects is the God-given constant central concern of humans, and (2) which of the remaining two is humans’ God-given base from which humans are bound to make their own God-given phenomenological cosmological inquiry?

    God technically could have created Adam and Eve inside a miraculous temporary observation bubble just prior to the first moment of Creation Week, so that they could see God’s work of creating mere matter and such. But He did not. He created them on a completed planet, and this is the daytime when the starry host is obscured by the daylit air’s opaqueness.

    And the simply fact is that the only story of origins that, in its own terms, could be the most instructive for us by beginning with telling us of nothing but trivially universal physics is the *atheistic* story. This is because that story is the one not only according to which not only is the Earth, life, and humans objectively insignificant, but according to which human providential knowledge and technology is, in the long term, the product mainly of humans’ admitting that human ‘subjective’ values for life and the Earth are *merely* subjective.

    But is that same ‘subjective’, and terrestrially bound, phenomenological frame of reference that makes any of Genesis 1 naturally comprehensible to us. For without that frame of reference, we could not readily perceive that the account is about an actual six days.

    So, unless we want to say that God is so senselessly concerned for the ‘authoritativeness’ of the account as to tell it all from that effectively aloof no-where frame of reference, then we are admitting, implicitly, that the account is, in fact, NOT described from that everywhere-nowhere omnipresent-omniscient frame of reference.

    So, contrary to the merely typical Recent Creation reading, Genesis 1 is not aloof to the human terrestrial and life-centric frames of reference. So, I should think that it would make the best sense to think that God actually prefers that God-given human frame of reference for describing such things as the creation and formation of the Earth and its life.

    We should, therefore, expect that Biblical Hebrew, unlike Anglo Saxon, is a life-centric grammatical conceptual scheme. As far as I can tell from the merely typical Recent Creation reading, Anglo-Saxon is a scheme that specializes in such things as mechanical engineering. But, unless God designed Adam to be more a specialist in mechanical engineer than a prototypically rounded terrestrial human, then we should expect the Biblical Hebrew to be at least better than Anglo-Saxon for such things as terrestrial ecological dynamics and human phenomenological cosmology.

    So I think it ought to go without saying that our ‘divine image’ is life-centric, Earth-centric, and terrestrial-human-centric. It is not a blank-slate, passive readiness to take instruction from God (or from whatever we might *mistake* as God’s instruction). Rather, it is a ready participant, and often initiator in, what we normally expect of God relative to many a situation.

    Indeed, Theophilus of Antioch tacitly admitted that God had designed humans normally to expect that God would create things according to their providential dependence relations of function and material-type: a general thing is created or formed first, then its special member is created or formed afterward. But Theo took for granted that his admittedly oddity-making perception of a particular minority of the account in that regard was correct, so he had to think up a reason why God would have created that minority contrary to what he admittted was the God-given human normal expectation. And he had a reason, but it was merely polemic, not foundational.

    But Theo never explained how that polemic could have any God-given normal power to convict the anti-Bible person. Much less did he explain how his polemic interpretation could enlighten anyone who lives and dies having never heard the account.

    So Theo just was happy to conflate a pagan usage of the particular foundational expectation with God’s supposedly having damned that particular expectation by supposedly having created the particular minority of things in a sequence that is contrary to the God-given expectation. In other words, Theo reasoned that God was playing many of little boy’s insecure game of one-up-manship and then saying, in essence, “I am taking my ball and going home to my omnipotence”, for which this ‘omnipotence’ is the kind that is essentially divorced from God’s actual foundational wisdom.

    But we are God’s children, not caged pets that He brings out to do tricks for some insecure tyrannical power-trip. So Theo has simply engendered an ungodly arrogance in those who abide his interpretation, for it has no foundational substance of its own. It even leads to a superstitious hermeneutic on various other Bible passages, and even, in some people, on the whole Genesis 1 account. For example, MacArthur, in his 1017 entitled ‘The Theology of Creation (Selected Scriptures)’ (Youtube, Grace to You https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkkYQMlH3co) epitomizes the logically extreme dichotomy for which the account ignorantly is utilized in ostensible favor of its instructiveness. Specifically, this is false instructiveness of blind assent to a blindly polemic-centric interpretation according to which the account describes a ‘series’ of ‘instantaneous’ miracles that therefore cannot be allowed to be accessible to what we can know of how Earth’s ecology basically coheres.

    MacArthur essentially claims that God wants to keep us from seeing any possible providential realism in the account. But of that were what God wants, then why did God put so much into the account that appeals to our providential interests?

    At least Faulkner observes the para-providential terminology in account’s descriptions of God ‘process’ of creating plants and animals. And Henry Morris Sr. (2000, Biblical Creationism) notes that the account uses ‘create’ for living creatures *as a class), so that it *does not use* this term for the land animals specifically.

    In some fantasy-magic stories on TV or in movies, a person or thing is being shown ‘popping’ into place from some other location. The typical impression is that there is no duration of time between that at which the object or person does not occupy that new place and when the whole object or person occupies that new place. If this happened in the real world, and if none of the local environment of that place were appropriately attended by some magic or magic-like technology, the rate of air displacement would be nothing short of catastrophically explosive. Never mind the acoustics of the sudden influx of the person or thing, the rate of the air’s outward expansion, or shock wave, would obliterate everything within a wide radius. 

    Then there is the friction heat generated by the speed at which the air is forced to move. Such heat would, in a very small fraction of a second, burn to ashes every flammable thing within a comparable radius. And this does not even deal with the sheer vacuum pressure generated by the radial outblast of air, which would explosively suck both the producing mass and the ground under it in such a way as to leave a huge crater, and likewise obliterate the producing mass (the person or object). So, in these fantasy stories, there is not even a half-hearted attempt at a broad physical realism for the result of such an instantaneous influx of mass and volume.

    The Creation Week account involves description either of an influx of new matter or of an unnaturally rapid production of new volume. Consider if the rate of any of the influx of either had been so much as near-instantaneous. Catastrophic forces would have resulted short of God’s miraculously preventing them. This does not imply that God actually miraculously prevented them. This is because there is nothing in the account to suggest that He created plants and animals in even a near-instantaneous rate. On the contrary, as Faulkner observes.

    Imagine, then, if God created even just the global population of elephants in a single, truly non-durational instant. Short of His miraculously preventing the resulting production of any catastrophic forces, the entire planet’s ecology, including the atmosphere, would have been incinerated, and many land surfaces down to many meters turned into a global dust cloud in place of the atmosphere.

    So the issue on Genesis 1 is not simply that of its sacred authoritativeness, nor of what it can seem to a passive dulled mind merely to spell out. The issue is how its authoritativeness is self-evident in the account. MacArthur denies that it has any self-evidence thereto. So the issue is whether God wants us to understand His work in Creation Week in any providential terms at all. And if He does, then on what basis could we think that He wants mainly to impress us with some fantasy ‘Genie’-like power? Is the Earth a providential system, or not? Is that system that which God created in Creation Week, or wasn’t it?

    Are we designed by God to desire to establish life on other planets, or is that desire from Satan?

  2. You are right to say, “The Scriptures are consistent.” But you claim that “Anyone who reads the record of Genesis *understands* what is written. The words and phrases are not at all complex to grasp, but they do require belief.”

    The fact is that not every main crucial point in Genesis 1 is spelled out for the proverbial Complete Idiot. Of prime example, consider the following several Scripture passages as they normally ought to help interpret the phrase ‘darkness upon’ in Genesis 1:2.

    Luke 23:44, Exodus 14:20, Deuteronomy 4:11, Joshua 24:7, 2Samuel 22:12, Job 3:5, Job 17:12, Job 22:11, Job 38:9, and Psalm 18:11.

    Moreover:
    There is an unassumingly natural, God-given universal, most basic way of reading Genesis 1. In this, there are two fairly generic, merely generalistic, levels. On the first level, the account tells of

    1. the concrete origins of the cosmos
    2. over six contiguous, terrestrial-length days,
    3. at least the latter-most four days of which involved the terrestrial world’s own day-night cycle.

    On the second level, the account identifies the sequence in which the things that were created and formed…were created and formed.

    It is at this second generic level that most people stop. They do not even seek as to the depth of intimacy to which the first level is related to this second level. This is not to say they never see anything deeper in the account. But they do not systematically build their analysis of the account beyond this second level. And they treat it mainly as an account as such, not as an account that has as its sole main subject the single most universal thing that humans are made to know. Hence, they see the account’s six-day span as having no intimate natural relation to the things created and formed or the sequence in which they are formed. The best that most people ever do, even in the last few decades, is consult what little that the Bible merely spells out, specifically, about that six-day span.

    Hugh Ross has it wrong, but not in every way that you think he is wrong.

    The Earth, as Natural Life Support System (NLSS), is _Irreducibly complex_, just like a living organism. And the Earth’s NLSS is made up of both non-living and living systems.

    …and any atheist will admit that if even any one of the most basic parts of that system were suddenly and permanently cease to exist, that NLSS would completely fail in a matter of days.

    …in a matter of days.