Re: GEN 1-11: Beyond the concordist debate

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (
Date: Tue May 07 2002 - 22:16:53 EDT

  • Next message: george murphy: "Re: The Problem of Liberal Theology"

    On Tue, 07 May 2002 16:41:53 -0400 Jan de Koning <>
    > >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.
    > <snip>
    > Jan

    What is it that I have written that brought this response? That I'm not
    Christian Reformed? I said I was convinced by "the scriptural evidence."
    How does the Bible make me lose my faith in the only basis for hope that
    it offers? Or is OEC necessary to salvation? Or must one belong to some
    Reformed body, preferably Christian Reformed, but possibly RCA or one of
    the Presbyterian groups (the right one, of course), to be saved?

    I did not respond to your points in detail because I felt that there was
    no reason to expound matters that had been repeated several times by you
    and others. Your truth (and myth) without redefinition sounds to much
    like Humpty Dumpty semantics for me to want to get involved.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 08 2002 - 00:12:04 EDT