Science, reasoning scriptural truths
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
2 of 3 free articles.
Editor,
Harold Young contends the Declaration of Independence “is a product of the Enlightenment” (secularized thinking … any notion of a Sovereign Creator God is irrelevant to history and human actions, if not downright silly) and “God and nature are the same thing.” I can’t agree with that conclusion, not only within the context of history, but also within the context of the specific words of the Declaration itself. Also, I don’t view “science and clear reasoning” as contrary to the revealed truth of scripture but rather, rightly applied, entirely consistent with it.
“Nature’s God” explicitly conveys the understanding that there is a God over nature; higher than nature, different than nature. If the signers of the Declaration believed that God was simply nature, it is not logical that they would appeal to it as the “Supreme Judge of the world for the Rectitude of our Intentions.” How is it that they could appeal to mere “nature” to judge the morality of their actions or intentions?
Moreover, by the same token, “a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence” indicates far more than an expectation of “nature” to protect them. It is clearly expressive of belief in a Sovereign who can act on the appeals and petitions of men, even in a “supernatural” way.
Different presuppositions lead to different conclusions. The statement by Mr. Young that “words and phrases take on different implications over time” especially caught my attention. If “words and phrases” do not mean what they were meant to mean by those who wrote or spoke them but instead can be understood in any fashion in which we want to understand them at any given time, I really don’t know how we can have honest dialog or communication.
Rick Jore
Ronan
