FW: BIBLE/ORIGINS: seeking feedback

From: Matt Morton (matt.morton@co.yakima.wa.us)
Date: Thu Jan 30 2003 - 13:50:19 EST

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: David Livingstone's take on geology and creation"

    (I am trying to send this to be posted..I may be doing it wrong...if so
    you please forward to the group/moderator id one still exists) :)


    I usually sit back and just attempt to digest all the messages that flash
    across my screen day in and day out. However, I wanted to voice my agreement

    and kudos for your statement. We as scientists often seek infallible proof
    solid "believable" explanations of events and actions. The bible is not a
    scientific document and should not be viewed as such. We cannot place a
    context on the miraculous...and any attempt to do so can conflict with the
    principle of faith. To quote an anonymous author, "For some no explanation
    needed, for others no explanation will do": and that is central to the faith

    argument. We could ask why Aristotle's Dictum about the treatment of
    texts is not applied by secular scholars to the Bible in its study and
    application. Aristotle basically said that any historical manuscript found
    should be trusted unless it can be proven to be false or inaccurate. As far
    Archaeology and "Science" can determine the Bible is astonishingly more
    accurate than most literature of the past centuries (historically,
    scientifically, preservationaly, etc, etc). But that is besides the
    is the point.

    However, I do believe God makes allowances (as he is more gracious and
    compassionate than we can ever conceive) for peoples personal comfort level
    and "walk" with him. I DON'T BELIEVE God micromanages salvation, or at least

    his word does not seem to indicate so. The most important themes are woven
    in a
    continuum throughout the text (similar to a holographic transform,) so even
    though the message is spread it retains resolution. Modern Worship,
    Worship, Worship with no music at all, just with voices...does any of this
    affect salvation? The answer I beleive is a resounding NO!. But it IS
    to many people here on earth (evidenced by the myriad of worship styles and
    church divisions over it.) We should not limit God by OUR human concept of
    worship, faith, prayer should be. (Keep in mind the "checks" God gives us to

    remain faithful to him through the Holy Spirit, etc). Obviously be-heading
    chickens in the name of Jesus would not qualify.

    The important concepts of salvation, Faith in Christ, bearing Good Fruit,
    etc, are unmistakable and speak to the heart of every Christian...being
    we sometime let our human experience absent the ramifications walking here
    now in the power of Christ, for we ARE saved...not going to be saved, not
    planning on being saved...IT IS FINISHED and we should proceed along those
    The bible says those who have faith in Christ ARE saved

    That said I do think the pursuit of Science and discovery in the light of
    is rational, has merit and is a worthy cause, if not to God than to us his

    > Douglas Hayworth wrote:
    > > I am in total agreement that requiring Jesus' parables to be
    > scientifically
    > > accurate is absurd.
    > If inerrancy were not such a big deal, people would not even be having
    > mustard-seed debate, would they? And for those who do not hold Scripture
    > be inerrant but still respect it, the parable's message for them would
    > be there in all its force. So to me an insistence on inerrancy seems to
    > trade emphasis on enlightenment for endless debates over relatively
    > points. Furthermore, such debates historically have become causes for
    > division.
    > On the plus side, holding to inerrancy at least requires interpreters to
    > interpret rather than merely dismiss. I'm thinking of people like the
    > Seminar scholars, who according to _The Five Gospels_ dismiss much of the
    > key material in the Gospels. They thus go way beyond what I would
    > acceptable.
    > If you don't hold to inerrancy, as I really don't, the big question
    > what are the acceptable limits? How much will I allow someone to dismiss
    > without excluding him from my fellowship? The short answer is that,
    > fortunately, it's not my job to judge. I think I could have fellowship
    > anyone who seems to have a basic respect for the authority of God and
    > biblical teaching.
    > I just don't see God as someone who is going to be uptight over whether
    > immerse or sprinkle, or whether you believe it's the real body and blood
    > a representation. God has more important things on his mind.
    > Don
    > PS - By the way, I'd like to thank those who responded to my request for
    > feedback. You've taught me a lot. Among other things, you've taught me
    > that I've been paying way too much attention to the atheists and skeptics
    > both among my friends and in general, and way too little attention to
    > like yourselves. But without the Internet I'd never have known you
    > I conclude that OECs who accept something like traditional Christian
    > theology need better PR.
    > You've also taught me that I need to rework some phraseology on my
    > website!
    > >

    This was sent using Ellensburg Telephone's
    On-Line Mail Reader. Courtesy of EllTel
    Internet Service (Dialup and High Speed DSL)
    EllTel Internet -- RIGHT ON!

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jan 30 2003 - 13:52:17 EST