I had not so much thought of the theological issues as analogous, but
rather that the exegetical approaches were similar. More
specifically, I hoped to show that it was inconsistent to endorse the
Westminster standards while condemning me for thinking that the light
of nature could support a more figurative interpretation of a passage.
Dr. David Campbell
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 USA
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: george murphy <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 10:01:01 -0400
>> The Westminster Confession of Faith appeals to the "light of nature"
>> (as well as many arguments from Scripture) to support the contention
>> that transubstantiation is incorrect. This use of physical evidence
>> to support a less literalistic interpretation seems like a good
>> parallel for the appeal to physical evidence in interpreting Genesis
>> 1. My only attempt so far at applying this reasoning had an already
>> unreceptive audience, so I cannot tell if it is likely to sway others.
> This is an interesting analogy. I had not thought of this before
>but there is some similarity between transsubstantiation and "apparent
>age" arguments for YEC. In fact it might be possible to cast the latter
>in Aristotelian form by saying that the substance of creation is ~6000
>years old but that its accidents give the appearance of billions of years
>George L. Murphy
>"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 09 2002 - 14:57:26 EDT