Re: Response to Howard on Tillich & Bultmann

From: Vernon Jenkins (
Date: Sat May 24 2003 - 17:51:12 EDT

  • Next message: Bill Payne: "Bioturbation"


    Just two points at this time:

    (1) Regarding my suggestion that the science that underpins the study of
    earth history is _deductive_, you first claim this to be "manifestly false"
    (presumably meaning that it is so obviously untrue as to require no further
    comment). However, you then go on to say you are "not aware" that geology is
    deductive. Clearly therefore, you accept there is some room for doubt. That
    being the case, kindly explain, (a) why you believe so strongly that your
    reading of the geological record is correct, and (b) why those who disagree
    are worthy of utter contempt.

    (2) The people you criticise as being guilty of "distortion and
    misrepresentation" not only believe in God, but also in what He has caused
    to be written in His name - particularly as it concerns the true nature of
    man; ergo, his complete dependence on _revelation_ to settle the matters of
    origins and destinies. Kindly explain why such a reasonable understanding of
    what the Bible actually says should cast doubt on the "moral integrity" of
    those who hold such views.


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Michael Roberts" <>
    To: "Vernon Jenkins" <>; "Howard J. Van Till"
    <>; <>
    Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 11:06 AM
    Subject: Re: Response to Howard on Tillich & Bultmann

    > > 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
    > 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
    > geology is deductive. It is this kind of distortion and misrepresentation
    > which calls the moral integrity of YEc into question, especially those
    > a supposedly good scientific base.
    > That being so,
    > > it is surely desirable that as brothers and sisters in Christ we
    > > 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
    > 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:
    > > 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 - 17:51:58 EDT