Re: In Defence of my beliefs.doc

From: Vernon Jenkins (
Date: Thu May 02 2002 - 18:48:49 EDT

  • Next message: Terry M. Gray: "Re: GEN 1-11: Beyond the concordist debate"

    Hi Shuan,

    I go along with your view that there are essentially 'two kinds of
    Christian'. Here are my observations on the core of the divide:

    Category A :- Those who accept the divine strictures concerning man
    and, accepting their helplessness, regard the Bible as a body of
    revealed truth - therefore taking its contents seriously, in
    particular, its warnings regarding unbelief (eg Lk.16:19-31;
    2Pe.3:16,17). For them, the undermining of the Scriptures by the
    claims of the scientist is seen as but one inevitable consequence of
    man's essential nature; they respond by 'putting on the whole armour
    of God' (Eph.6:11-18) - which includes 'the sword of the Spirit,
    which is the word of God'. In this manner they exercise true reason
    and are thereby enabled to distinguish between 'fact' and

    Category B :- Those who blatantly disregard, (a) the foundational
    information that God has imparted concerning man, (b) the scriptural
    warnings in regard to unbelief, and (c) the possibility that events
    in this world might rest on supernatural (hence, unpredictable)
    considerations (eg 1Sam.18:10,11; 1Ki.22). Joining forces with the
    materialists, they prefer to follow the word of man rather than the
    Word of God, and thus having in their own minds broken that 'which
    shall stand forever' (Is.40:8), pick up and assemble those pieces
    that take their fancy.

    Like your YEC friends, I am unashamedly a 'Category A' man who
    regards the 'scoring of points' in this life as having little eternal
    merit. More reasonable, and far safer in my view, to accept God's
    Word as it has come down to us; certainly more assuring, and far less

    Sincerely, and with regards,


    Shuan Rose wrote:

    I sent this to a couple of YEC brothers who doubted my faith because I told
    them I believed in evolution and rejected a literal interpretation of
    Genesis 1-11.Below is my response. I included some excerpts from Mike, Glenn
    and Terry to illustrate my points
    Because of my belief in evolution and my rejection of a literalistic
    interpretation of Genesis, some have questioned whether I am a Christian.
    The implication is that I am a skeptic, a heretic, or someone who is still
    searching for God.
    For the record, I am a Christian who affirms the Apostles and Nicene Creeds
    and that God in Christ through the Holy Spirit has come to save Man.
    However, there are in my opinion two kinds of Christian. There is the one
    who pretends that the last 200 years of scientific and historical
    investigation did not happen and that modern science poses no problems for a
    literalistic interpretation of the Bible. Such people are quite happy to
    accept and even use astronomy and physics, -when it shows that the universe
    must have had a beginning-but not where it shows that the earth is very old
    and part of an older universe. They accept geology, when geologists find the
    oil that they can put into their cars. But they reject it when geologists
    use the same techniques to show that the earth is 4.6 billion years old and
    that life appeared on earth in stages and not all at once 6,000 years ago.
    They accept biology, when it creates new crops and medicines and sends
    criminals to jail through DNA evidence. But they reject biology when
    biologists use the same analysis to show that modern forms of life evolved
    from earlier forms of life and that in particular, humans and modern apes
    share a common ancestor.
    I believe that such a Christian is best deluded and at worst a hypocrite.
    One cannot simply accept the parts of modern science that he or she likes
    and reject the rest, simply because it conflicts with your interpretation of
    the Bible. This attitude may win acceptance among like-minded Christians.
    But the outside world will think that you are living in a fool's paradise,
    and will think you no different from the person who asserts that the earth
    is flat and immovable on the basis of Ps 96:10 and Isa. 11:12.
    The second Christian understands that modern science has come to conclusions
    about the physical world that make a simple, literal interpretation of
    Genesis 1-11 impossible, and understands that new interpretations are
    necessary, just as in the sixteenth century when it became clear through
    science that the earth revolved around the sun and that Gen. 11:7, Josh.
    10:13, Eccl. 5:1, and other passages could not be interpreted literally, as
    indeed they were before Copernicus and Galileo. The ASA list serv is one
    group where Christian scientists and nonscientists are trying to work out
    such a new interpretation. Unfortunately, the first type of Christian has
    continually accused quite a few of them of apostasy and worse. I would ask
    that you consider the evidence and join the dialogue and help us on the list
    serv work on these problems before rendering judgment.
    Her are few excerpts from this dialogue that express the point more clearly
    than I have.
    (Good Stuff snipped)
    These are not atheists or scoffers, but sincere, Bible believing Christians
    who are truly concerned with wrestling with a difficult problem.
    If this be skepticism or heresy, let there be more of it. We honor the Lord
    of truth by dealing with it, not covering it up or by preferring the lies
    that comfort us.

    Shuan Rose, Attorney at Law
    2632 N Charles Street, Baltimore MD 21218

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 02 2002 - 23:53:05 EDT