From: Vernon Jenkins (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri May 30 2003 - 17:43:06 EDT
This verbal exchange began as a result of your treating us to some typical
hyperbole, viz "What I am saying is that YEC and any fundamentalist nonsense
creates a severe problem to both the head and the heart of any Christian
striving to follow Christ." (23.05) -
having earlier said, "If I were presented with the choice of YEC or atheism
I would choose the latter as being more in the spirit of Jesus.", and " If
the choice was YEC and any form of liberal Christianity I would choose the
latter for being closer to the teachings of the Bible."
I can well understand why you would now wish to disengage, but before doing
that perhaps you would now properly address the matter which formed the
greater part of my recent posting, viz the essential nature of man - as it
is presented in the Scriptures (eg Gn.8:21, Ps.2:1-3, Jer.17:9, Jn.2:25,
Ro.3:10,23) - and how this might impact on the C/E debate. As a Christian
minister of long standing you will of course be aware of these
'fundamentalist' Bible teachings - which, incidentally, appear to be
adequately confirmed by what we know of ourselves and others. However,
perhaps you would like to give us your views.
My own feeling is that the debate cannot be properly and meaningfully
engaged until this fundamental human flaw is factored in; for surely, if
there is doubt about his being a reliable witness in respect of ultimate
origins, then it should be declared - wouldn't you agree? According to the
Bible, both Creation and Flood were supernatural events; why then should we
be expected to believe those who tell us that only natural forces were
And one further question that has always intrigued me: when you assembled
your _condensed_ version of the Bible, how did you decide which verses to
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Roberts" <email@example.com>
To: "Vernon Jenkins" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: The forgotten verses (was Re: Response to Howard on Tillich &
> > In respect of your claim that the 'geologic column' tells _one
> > story_ - to the exclusion of all others - I think we shall have to agree
> > disagree. [You may be interested to know that I too have had some
> > of geological field trips as an undergraduate studying mining
> > My teachers - all evolutionists - spoke freely and comfortably in terms
> > multiples of megayears. I lapped it up at the time, but now appreciate
> > there are other matters that need to be considered before a Christian
> > 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
> > these recorded by the Apostle John: ".for he (Jesus) knew what was in
> > (Jn.2:25) - seemingly in direct answer to the question posed by
> > "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who
> > 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
> > However, manifestly, it is much neglected information - despite the fact
> > that, (a) the raison d'etre for our becoming Christians in the first
> > is an understanding that "There is none righteous,.For all have sinned
> > 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
> > wickedness of man as it is observed in the world around us, and (c) what
> > each know of ourselves - the 'plague of his own heart', as King Solomon
> > it (1Ki.8:38). Clearly, the 'natural man' is unaware of this essential
> > 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
> > 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
> > think straight - you have chosen to join with atheists (who know nothing
> > 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
> 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
> > 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
> > God's ultimate purpose for man; but when it attempts to challenge
> > about which God has already spoken plainly and clearly, then surely we
> > 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
> > persuasive body of scientific argument (for there are substantial
> > 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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri May 30 2003 - 17:43:23 EDT