At 07:16 PM 07/05/02 -0700, D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote:
>On Tue, 07 May 2002 16:41:53 -0400 Jan de Koning <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > >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.
It only meant that I don't understand you. I don't particularly care that
you are not Christian Reformed, but your reply left me confused. Not a
Young Earth creation, not an Old Earth creation? My truth? How is that
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 08 2002 - 18:24:05 EDT