>I think not, I continue to stand on what I wrote. I see no evidence,
>scriptural or otherwise, that science and culture are not just human
>inventions. God may bless but we corrupt and I do not see the stamp of God
>through Christ redeeming human culture or knowledge of the physical
>universe. Christ is the only one who can redeem and he redeems people. I
>see no place in scripture where we are sent to redeem anything -- we are
>sent to be the Redeemer's messengers: to proclaim the Good News of God
>Grace and Love and to provide for the weak and poor.
I don't want to get into a big discussion about this. I just want to point
out that John's view, which he has continually reiterated on this list,
is basic 'fideism', and it is not a view that is widely accepted in
most churches. It has too many philosophical problems.
Of course John's 'religious' statements, such as those given above, are
pious and sincere. But he wants to make a total separation between such
religious statements and other (scientific and cultural) statements. He
to assert a complete epistemological dualism.
I am not a fan of 'natural theology', which often goes too far in asserting
the dominance of reason over faith. But on the other hand, I am not
a fan of fideism either, which gives away the store by saying that all
religious knowledge is 'totally other' and is separated into what Francis
Schaeffer called the 'upper storey'.
An excellent book that deals with these issues at an advanced level is
the book by Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley, 'Classical Apologetics'. I
recommend that anyone who is seriously interested in understanding this issue
should read this book.
Paul Arveson, Code 724, Research Physicist, Signatures Directorate
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division
9500 MacArthur Blvd., West Bethesda, MD 20817-5700
(301) 227-3831 (301) 227-4511 (FAX)