Re: The forgotten verses (was Re: Response to Howard on Tillich & Bultmann

From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Wed May 28 2003 - 17:09:18 EDT

  • Next message: Michael Roberts: "Re: Do non-U.S. Christians say "God Bless America?""

    >
    >
    >
    > In respect of your claim that the 'geologic column' tells _one particular
    > story_ - to the exclusion of all others - I think we shall have to agree
    to
    > disagree. [You may be interested to know that I too have had some
    experience
    > of geological field trips as an undergraduate studying mining engineering.
    > My teachers - all evolutionists - spoke freely and comfortably in terms of
    > multiples of megayears. I lapped it up at the time, but now appreciate
    that
    > there are other matters that need to be considered before a Christian can
    > fairly and honestly come to such a conclusion.]
    >
    This is no answer at all and is a refusal to consider matters. You seem to
    be thoroughly post-modern arguing what is true to me.
    What are the other matters?

    >

    >
    > Among the words of the NT which have greatly affected me as a Christian
    are
    > these recorded by the Apostle John: ".for he (Jesus) knew what was in
    man."
    > (Jn.2:25) - seemingly in direct answer to the question posed by Jeremiah:
    > "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can
    > know it?" (Jer.17:9). Now it occurs to me that here we encounter a
    > fundamental piece of information - one having potentially far-reaching
    > consequences - not least, for the debate in which we are currently
    engaged.
    > However, manifestly, it is much neglected information - despite the fact
    > that, (a) the raison d'etre for our becoming Christians in the first place
    > is an understanding that "There is none righteous,.For all have sinned and
    > come short of the glory of God." (Ro.3:10,23), and that we need this
    > particular Saviour, Jesus Christ, to come and put us right, (b) the
    obvious
    > wickedness of man as it is observed in the world around us, and (c) what
    we
    > each know of ourselves - the 'plague of his own heart', as King Solomon
    puts
    > it (1Ki.8:38). Clearly, the 'natural man' is unaware of this essential and
    > deep-seated flaw in man's character (nor would he accept its importance,
    > even if it were known to him); tragically, there are few Christians also
    who
    > give it a second thought in situations in which it should be allowed to
    > exercise a decisive role.
    >
    >
    >
    > Michael, as a Christian - and though well aware that man is not only an
    > enemy of God (Ps.2) and prone to 'evil imaginations' (Gn.8:21), but can't
    > think straight - you have chosen to join with atheists (who know nothing
    of
    > these fundamentals) to promote the evolutionary enterprise.
    Actually I was not discussing evolution at all, simply considering basic
    geology which is manifestly non-evolutionary.

    Have I joined with atheists because I conclude from hard evidence that the
    earth is ancients.
    Note that atheists also hold that 2+2=4, water is H2O and Ohm's Law is V=IR,
    does that mean I must reject those as well and think that water is Na Cl.
    You cant have it both ways.

    Has it not occurred to you that when God's Word is challenged in the name
    of science
    > this is precisely what one would have predicted on the basis of the
    biblical
    > strictures concerning the essential human condition.
    Where is God's word challenged by science?

    Fair game for the
    > atheist, of course! But what of those whose eyes have been opened?
    Science -
    > as normally and properly practised - is clearly part of the outworking of
    > God's ultimate purpose for man; but when it attempts to challenge matters
    > about which God has already spoken plainly and clearly, then surely we are
    > in a completely different realm.
    >
    >
    >
    > I therefore suggest the YEC position is the only possible option for the
    > Christian because, in the final analysis, what matters is not the the more
    > persuasive body of scientific argument (for there are substantial problems
    > for both sides) but what the Scriptures have to say about the essential
    > nature of those involved in the battle.

    This is the heart of your argument. You think YEC is the only alternative,
    but give no argument s agianst what you consider to be mistaken science.
    Instead you simply quote texts to make your point and forget that YECs are
    as corruptible as anyone else.

    Consider the matter closed.

    Michael
    >
    >
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed May 28 2003 - 17:26:56 EDT