Re: "charismatic" theologies and science

From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Mon Sep 02 2002 - 04:15:20 EDT

  • Next message: Dawsonzhu@aol.com: "Re: philosophy, science, & philosophy of science"

    I now confess. I was trailing my coat as I know full well what has been
    going on for the last 150 years with both Dabney el al and Princeton.

    My aim was to stress that with the exception of southern Presbyterians Old
    Earth was the norm. Two years ago Ted Davies and I at the ASA conference
    tried to list all late 19th century young earthers and did not get into
    double figures.
    If one goes back further one will find that in the 18th century many
    orthodox Christians were accepting of an oldish earth (i.e. more than 6000
    years) and by 1800 most did. By 1820 millions was the norm among most
    evangelicals. In fact YEC as we now it was not present in the church of any
    denomination since 1600 except as a small minority and mostly in the time
    before the age of the earth could be realised or fully justified. I say this
    having reading dozens of writings from 1600 to 1800.

    YEC need to explain why the age of the earth was not an issue before the
    last few decades. If so were our evangelical forbears, including Wesley and
    Edwards as well as the Princeton theologians in error on their doctrine of
    salvation and scripture etc?

    This is a far more basic question than whether coal formed by floating mats
    points to a young earth.

    Michael



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 02 2002 - 11:54:56 EDT