Skip to main content

A Genesis Axiom to Grind

An axiom is a statement that is assumed to be true without evidence, and often used as a starting point in arguments or discussions. We all use them whether we know it or not, and they make up our worldviews. They are important in logic and mathematics. The word is based on the Greek for value or worth, and the area of philosophy called axiology can be traced back to the same word.

An Old Testament scholar wanted to use humanist philosophy to judge the declaration of God that creation is good. He is horribly mistaken.
Garden of Eden image credit: Free Christian Illustrations
Jaco Gericke, an Old Testament scholar, took a notion to do some axiology on Genesis 1. God called everything good, and he seemed to take exception to that. He says it makes no sense to call something good without an axiological frame of reference. Philosophy (and its related categories of logic and ethics) is good to study in principle, but the "great thinkers" and their philosophies are brought to nothing by the Word of God (1 Cor. 1:19-25). Christians should know that there is no one greater than God. When we take an oath, we swear by God, who is the greatest. Who does God swear by? Himself (Heb. 6:13, Jer. 44:26, Deut. 1:8).

I reckon that Gericke is on the prod about God not having a frame of reference based on humanistic philosophy. He needs to read Job 38-41, because God is sovereign and doesn't need to consult with humans. God is good (Psalm 34:8, Mark 10:18). It is his nature, and what he does is good (see "The Goodness of God"). Yes, some things are "good" in different ways. Chocolate tastes good to me, but it's not good for my waistline, and it is lethal to Basement Cat. Other things are good in some ways but not so good (or even bad) in others. God's declaration that his finished work of creation is a different matter.
What God created in the beginning was “very good.” Old Testament scholar professor Jaco Gericke does not believe that: God creating things for the first time and calling them good without an axiological frame of reference is unintelligible. His philosophical reconstruction of the Most High and the axiology of Genesis 1 leads him to claim, among other things, that the “character” in the text was a realist, naturalist, and subjectivist; none of the things that God created had any objective value; nothing was assumed to be perfect; and what was good depended on whether or how much it was desired. The aim of this paper is to show that it is not unintelligible that God created everything good from the beginning; it is only unintelligible to the person who makes the claim.
It's a bit of a long paper, but worth your time. To finish reading, click on "The Most High and the Axiology of Genesis 1: Could God Create Everything Good from the Beginning?"


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Andy Stanley, Frank Turek, and Bad Theology

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Andy Stanley has been disappointing some people, and causing quite a few to be alarmed by his opposition to the authority of Scripture. (Note: Do not be confused.  Charles  Stanley is his father, senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, and heard on In Touch Ministries . I've found most of his teachings to be doctrinally sound, and he upholds the inerrancy and authority of the Bible.) Unfortunately, megachurch director Andy Stanley has been saying things that are destructive to the truth, including recommending the false teaching of theistic evolution. Gray wolf image credit: US National Park Service While shooting from the hip can be a good thing, someone claiming the title of pastor should reign himself in . Stanley was disrespectful of small churches, then apologized later . In another instance, " What  did he just say?", Stanley may have used a very bad word in a sermon. When the segment was legally posted on YouTube

Disappointment with Young Earth Creation

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  First, a note for anyone who is curious. The usual format: introduction with some of my thoughts plus links for useful information, excerpts of featured articles, then links to keep reading. I put my name on it and call it an article when I have more to say. This one will be different. I will reference older articles, then add some thoughts that I hope will prove helpful. There is more following the excerpt and link. So, does anyone remember Ken Keathley? Medal image manufactured at Custom Medal Maker Several years ago, Ken Keathley renounced young earth creationism to accept an old earth view. Apparently, he was disappointed by people in the young earth community. No kidding? Taking Friendly Fire This is where I'm going to open up and get personal with both of my readers. Ken Keathley is not the only one who has been disappointed, and in addition, I've been deeply hurt by the young earth community. Things I have posted on social(ist) media have been &qu

Evaluating Truth Claims in Genesis

Some people try to dismiss Genesis as myth containing spiritual truth using elements from the pagan neighbors of the Hebrews. Others say it is misunderstood, as if the Creator of the universe was unable to communicate with us. With closer inspection, we see that Genesis is a historical narrative. Credit: RGBStock /  Billy Frank Alexander The idea that the early chapters of Genesis are mythological should not be accepted by professing Christians, as there are serious problems that result. (One of these is that Jesus, Peter, Paul, and others referred to these chapters as literal history, so by denying this, one is calling them liars!) Also, there are repercussions with the gospel message. Read some classical mythology, then come back to Genesis and see the difference. Myths are vague and have a different flow, but the Bible is precise. Indeed, even the sequence of creation days is specific — a day itself is defined. Interestingly, many translations have in Genesis 1:5 less accurate by us