At 07:57 PM 06/05/02 -0700, D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote (partially)
>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.
I believe, that the above statement is too general. True, I do not discuss
these subjects with some people in our church, but there are many who are
willing to listen. One should not forget, however, that some subjects
cannot be discussed with other believers because they lack the necessary
background in physics, biology, philosophy, or even theology.
> > Along with other things, the ASA is discussion group wherein people
> > like
> > me get to tell people like you, Shuan, George and others what you do
> > not
> > want to hear.
> > Some of us:
> > 1.) Think that the Bible is truth (without redefining "truth")
That redefining of "truth" has already been done through time. It used to
mean "faithfulness", now the faithfulness-aspect has been watered down, and
becomes something else, like "according to fact" in a modern sense of
facts, which is not the biblical way of telling stories. However, I find
it awfully difficult to talk with people who have this changed way
("according to fact in a modern sense") since they are usually not able, or
don''t have the time, or are not willing to study these subjects into the
necessary depth. So than I shut up. The subject of biblical truth needs a
lot of studying, so if people (in my church, a calvinist church) are not
willing to study, then I keep quiet. I will do the same on this forum. I
have before referred to the report to the 1991 synod of the Christian
Reformed Church, where my position is clearly stated in many
pages (published as Acts of Synod of the 1991 Synod of the Christian
Reformed Church.) If someone denies that Christ died for his sins, than I
may answer once or twice or more often depending on what is said. The
faithfulness of Jesus Christ in taking upon Himself the punishment for our
sins is basic, denying it means that the person doing so is not a Christian.
> > 2.) Do not believe in myths (without redefining the term "myth")
Agreed, but I think that Siemens and I have a different idea about what
"myth" is. Basic for a definition of "myth" is that it is a "lie" that is
not faithful to the God of Scriptures.
> > 3.) Realize that the Biblical authors were humans who could make errors
No, I don't think so. If that is so, than I have difficulty talking with
them. I do think, however, that copying and translations may bring in errors.
> > 4.) Reject as not inspired by the Holy Spirit any "myths" in the OT or NT
??? Meaning ???
> > 5.) Think that our I.Q is as high, and our logic as good, as yours is.
No. Please, don't sound that way. That sound childish. Sorry.
> > 6.) Do not accept the "authority" (of so-called "scholars") as a
> reason to accept the beliefs of others -- such as > you, Shuan
Again, that is not an argument, but just the sound of somebody that is at
the end of his reasoning. The only way to act then is to go back to
studying to see if it is the way Shuan and George say it. In general they
give their reasons. If they don't, ask them.
> > 7.) Believe that God is great enough to do anything that He wants to
> do in our space-time continuum.
All agree, but it does not help you in this particular debate.
> > 8.) Think that salvation is an individual matter and that the Lord
> will overcome all these problems -- despite out nutty disagrements.
The Lord will indeed overcome all our disagreements, but salvation is not
an "individual" matter. There is a community of those who are blessed and
are belonging to His community.
>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
Meaning? That you lost your faith in salvation through the blood of the
Lamb, our Lord Jesus Christ? If that is so we have to keep talking, but
talking without knowing the exact arguments is difficult. Also difficult
is it to talk when one does not know the background, theoretical as well as
practical, of the person one is talking to. That is a difficulty on a
forum like this. But keeping talking is the only possibility to clear up
difficulties. BTW difficulties remain for all of us, some can be talked
about here, others are more theological, or philosophical, and would
require a whole lot more discussion. Doctorates are not earned in a few
discussions, in the same way insight in difficult problems need more than
just a few discussions. They need study, after listening, then discussing,
listeming, agian discussing etc.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 07 2002 - 16:55:48 EDT