Re: Response to Howard on Tillich & Bultmann

From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Sat May 24 2003 - 06:06:40 EDT

  • Next message: Jim Eisele: "Re: The Tower of Babel - Less Confusing"

    > I trust you would agree that the science that underpins the study of
    earth
    > history is necessarily _deductive_ ; it seeks to determine a _possible_
    > series of events that has brought us to this point in time.

    I presume you are refering to science of geology and all historical
    sciences. If so then your statement is manifestly false. It is what has been
    claimed by creationists from the time of Henry Morris in 1961 (if not
    McCready Price in 1900) and has been reiterated by many. I am not aware that
    geology is deductive. It is this kind of distortion and misrepresentation
    which calls the moral integrity of YEc into question, especially those with
    a supposedly good scientific base.

    That being so,
    > it is surely desirable that as brothers and sisters in Christ we approach
    > the matter in a spirit of humility - respecting the views of others who
    have
    > chosen (in keeping with sound biblical principles, as they understand
    them)
    > to interpret the relevant data of the _here and now_ differently.

    As it is not so, YECs should be continually challenged to stop
    misrepresenting. Further such unsound biblical princilpes like insisting on
    a totally literal Genesis , continental drift in the days of Peleg and far
    fetched numerology also need challenging.

    >
    > The hardness of your stance betrays a complete disregard for some very
    clear
    > and fundamental scriptural teaching respecting the nature of man: clearly,
    > even in his redeemed state, he is no friend of God (Ps.2, Jn.21:15-17);
    and
    > since the Fall, has ever preferred imagination to reality (Gn.8:21,
    > Jer.17:9).
    Precisely and I have problems with those who are redeemed who continue to
    misrepresent and distort despite many appeals not to do so.

     I'm sure you would agree that facts such as these - which, if we
    > are honest, we know in our hearts to be true - should encourage us to
    depend
    > more on God's Word and help us to believe what we read.
    It is incumbent on all Christians not to misuse God's word and put forward
    our pet interpretations. Those who misuse God's word yet professing its
    inerrancy are encouraging others to reject the Bible as God's word.

    If that is hardness of my stance then so be it.

    Michael



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 24 2003 - 07:13:05 EDT