June 2009 Archives

You will forgive me for quoting this excerpt, as I am hardly the first. I am quite careful not to portray Sherlock Holmes as any more, or any less, a religious character as Doyle did. Nevertheless, a few paragraphs will always have a special place in my memory.

The following is taken from The Naval Treaty, by Arthur Conan Doyle. Holmes is interviewing Percy Phelps and his fiancée Annie Harrison, regarding the loss of a document of grave importance to Mr. Phelps:

"Thank you. I have no doubt I can get details from
Forbes. The authorities are excellent at amassing
facts, though they do not always use them to
advantage. What a lovely thing a rose is!"

He walked past the couch to the open window, and held
up the drooping stalk of a moss-rose, looking down at
the dainty blend of crimson and green. It was a new
phase of his character to me, for I had never before
seen him show any keen interest in natural objects.

"There is nothing in which deduction is so necessary
as in religion," said he, leaning with his back
against the shutters. "It can be built up as an exact
science by the reasoner. Our highest assurance of the
goodness of Providence seems to me to rest in the
flowers. All other things, our powers our desires,
our food, are all really necessary for our existence
in the first instance. But this rose is an extra.
Its smell and its color are an embellishment of life,
not a condition of it. It is only goodness which
gives extras, and so I say again that we have much to
hope from the flowers.

Percy Phelps and his nurse looked at Holmes during
this demonstration with surprise and a good deal of
disappointment written upon their faces. He had
fallen into a reverie, with the moss-rose between his
fingers. It had lasted some minutes before the young
lady broke in upon it.

"Do you see any prospect of solving this mystery, Mr.
Holmes?" she asked, with a touch of asperity in her
voice.

"Oh, the mystery!" he answered, coming back with a
start to the realities of life. "Well, it would be
absurd to deny that the case is a very abstruse and
complicated one, but I can promise you that I will
look into the matter and let you know any points which
may strike me."

I have recently enjoyed reading through Theophilus to Autolycus, a writing composed of three brief books, available in the second volume of the 1962 publication "The Anti-Nicene Fathers" from the Eerdmans Publishing Company. Theophilus, the bishop of Antioch, lived during the second century after Christ. Theophilus to Autolycus was an apology of the Christian faith: more specifically, it attacked the beliefs of pagan idolators and philosophers, and defended the antiquity and veracity of Holy Scripture.

The writing of Theophilus is remarkably modern, in the sense that it seems just as appropriate an apology against post-modern philosophers as it is against the ancient Greeks. For example, here an excerpt from the aforementioned publication, page 95:

Some of the philosophers of the Porch say that there is no God at all; or, if there is, they say that He cares for none but Himself; and these views the folly of Epicurus and Chrysippus has set forth at large. And others say that all things are produced without external agency, and that the world is uncreated, and that nature is eternal; and have dared to give out that there is no providence of God at all, but maintain that God is only each man's conscience. And others again maintain that the spirit which pervades all things is God. But Plato and those of his school acknowledge indeed that God is uncreated, and the Father and Maker of all things; but then they maintain that matter as well as God is uncreated, and aver that it is coeval with God. But if God is uncreated and matter uncreated, God is no longer, according to the Platonists, the Creator of all things, nor, so far as their opinions hold, is the monarchy of God established. And further, as God, because He is uncreated, is also unalterable; so if matter, too, were uncreated, it also would be unalterable, and equal to God; for that which is created is mutable and alterable, but that which is uncreated is immutable and unalterable. And what great thing is it if God made the world out of existent materials? For even a human artist, when he gets material from some one, makes of it what he pleases. But the power of God is manifested in this, that out of things that are not He makes whatever He pleases; just as the bestowal of life and motion is the prerogative of no other than God alone. For even man makes indeed an image, but reason and breath, or feeling, he cannot give to what he has made. But God has this property in excess of what man can do, in that He makes a work, endowed with reason, life, sensation. As, therefore, in all these respects God is more powerful than man, so also in this; that out of things that are not He creates and has created things that are, and whatever He pleases, as He pleases.

My initial survey of his writings indicate that Theophilus was what we would call today a confirmed "literal, six-day creationist", and that he also studied the timeline of Scripture in a similiar spirit as that of the much later Archbishop Ussher, who wrote The Annals of the World.

I would encourage my readers to familiarize themselves with these writings. They should not be difficult to find in any library, and there seems to be at least one English translation available online.

Please forgive the brief silliness, but I found this to be quite hilarious:

http://datetosave.com/

If you read nothing else, please read the ten dating tips:

http://datetosave.com/christian_dating_tips.shtml

(Thanks, Gary, for the link!)