On Mon, 06 May 2002 22:05:10 -0400 Walter Hicks
> Hi Dave,
> I appreciate what you have to say:
> I disagree that what you call "popular" is not " scholarly". The
> problem I see (at this time) is that many Christians see mostly the
> popular publications of people like Richard Dawkins ---- and nobody
> the so-called "scholarly" list can or does anything _popular_ to
> with and contradict his atheistic notions and his promotion of
> as the replacement for Christianity.
Re "popular": I used the term pejoratively, as manifesting a lack of
understanding of what is involved. Hawkings writes some "popular" works
with full understanding of the physics involved. But I cannot rationally
use his popular statement to correct someone in the physics department. I
strongly favor this type of popular work, as exemplified by some by
I may note that I earlier had a vendetta against the half-baked logic
texts which were continually being offered me by "reputable" publishers.
One was written by a professor who was characterized by one of his
students as the most disorderly man he knew. The book showed it. But it
was published. Gresham's Law holds more widely than in monetary matters.
> That is a very sad commentary and (IMO) it indicates that the
> "scholarly" folks are completely "out of touch" with respect to the
> _majority_ of Christians and cannot reach a wide ranging public
Unfortunately, the audience will not listen because they have believed a
lie. One can get a hearing among the denominations labeled "liberal"
(including Evangelical Lutherans) by most evangelicals and all fundies.
But the latter are willing to listen to Morris and Gish, but not to
anyone who strays beyond OEC.
> Along with other things, the ASA is discussion group wherein people
> me get to tell people like you, Shuan, George and others what you do
> want to hear.
> Some of us:
> 1.) Think that the Bible is truth (without redefining "truth")
> 2.) Do not believe in myths (without redefining the term "myth")
> 3.) Realize that the Biblical authors were humans who could make
> 4.) Reject as not inspired by the Holy Spirit any "myths" in the OT
> 5.) Think that our I.Q is as high, and our logic as good, as yours
> 6.) Do not accept the "authority" (of so-called "scholars") as a
> to accept the beliefs of others -- such as you, Shuan and/or
> 7.) Believe that God is great enough to do anything that He wants to
> in our space-time continuum.
> 8.) Think that salvation is an individual matter and that the Lord
> overcome all these problems -- despite out nutty disagrements.
Though I am not Reformed, I respect the statements of the Westminster
Confession and Shorter Catechism (haven't seen the larger version yet).
They are very clear that the Scripture is the infallible basis for faith
and practice, not anything else. This means that I do not disagree with
all your points. But I was forced by the scientific evidence to abandon
YEC, and by the scriptural evidence to abandon OEC.
> I hope that I speak for some others on this list. (Actually know
> that I
> D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 May 2002 13:05:05 -0400 (EDT) Graham Morbey
> > writes:
> > >
> > >
> > > Walter,
> > >
> > > I don't think that you can really call Francis Schaffer a
> > > recognized scholar, (as much as some of his engaging Christian
> > > apologetics
> > > - old Princeton, Van Til, and smattering of Dooyeweerd
> > > worldview- warms the chrisian heart) especially not in Old
> > > Testament
> > > studies.
> > I have to concur with Graham from a philosophical viewpoint. He
> > popular, not scholarly. A number of years ago I was asked to teach
> > Sunday school course with one of Schaffer's books as the text. I
> > it down because his "philosophy" begins where a legitimate study
> > end. But, because he tells evangelicals what they wanted to hear,
> I knew
> > that such a suggestion would produce heat rather than light in the
> > for he was their champion. I have noted that one becomes a
> > author by not making people really think. Telling them what they
> want to
> > hear is, however, very effective.
> > Dave
> Walt Hicks <email@example.com>
> In any consistent theory, there must
> exist true but not provable statements.
> (Godel's Theorem)
> You can only find the truth with logic
> If you have already found the truth
> without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 06 2002 - 23:18:02 EDT