Re: Fwd: Johnson on Bible Answer Man

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (
Date: Mon Mar 10 2003 - 12:56:39 EST

  • Next message: John Burgeson: "Re: Fwd: Johnson on Bible Answer Man"

    On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:59:13 +0000 "Josh Bembenek" <>
    > I find this very disturbing because I know alot of Christians who
    > consider
    > the answers given by the Bible Answer Man to be extremely competent
    > and
    > correct. He would certaintly be serviced by Van Till's discussion
    > of
    > minimal verses maximal naturalism. Not at all that I find all of
    > Kenneth
    > Miller's arguments fundmentally sound, nor do I agree with him, but
    > I don't
    > believe he is a minion of satan. The really disturbing thing about
    > this
    > approach is that becoming a true beleiver of Christ and thus
    > committing to
    > your salvation becomes wed to a particular view of origins. In no
    > way
    > should our devotion to our creator depend on how we view his
    > mechanistic
    > operations during the creative process. IMO, as Christians we
    > should find
    > every way possible to free all people to recognize, find faith in,
    > and serve
    > the Creator. What good is any mission against any idea or pradigm
    > from a
    > Christian perspective if it does not accomplish that goal?
    And George wrote in small part:
    >A few comments on the following - <snip>
    > 4) "Doesn't seem to occur to him" is the operative phrase for Johnson.
    >apparently "knew" all the right scientific & theological answers to
    begin with.
    Folks, you have to recognize Johnson's foundational premises: "I possess
    THE TRUTH. Anyone who disagrees with me is propagating error and serving
    Satan." To these he adds the principle that the goal justifies any means.

    These premises are closely related to what I call Premise Number One,
    both because it is the foundation of more "demonstrations" than any other
    and because it is so firmly held, even though seldom if ever recognized
    by those holding it. One who realizes that he has been using it normally
    becomes very embarrassed. I present it as a formula for the insertion of
    an indefinitely large variety of variables. "Because you disagree with me
    about (insert an item), you are (insert any appropriate pejorative
    term)." Intellectual matters are covered by confused, misinformed,
    ignorant, stupid; ethical, wicked, vicious, perverse; etc. Religious
    matters generate the most extreme condemnations, as evident in Keith's
    original post.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Mar 10 2003 - 12:59:50 EST