Re: The forgotten verses

From: Iain Strachan (
Date: Tue Jun 17 2003 - 16:48:27 EDT

  • Next message: Iain Strachan: "Re: asa-digest V1 #3398"


    > I would suggest that a sample size of two is a bit too small to make any
    > generalizations. However, it looks to me like ASA fits the pattern that I
    > suggested is common, while AiG does not. Perhaps the sample size ought to
    > enlarged. How about checking the Creation Research Society in the U.S. or
    > the Creation Science Movement in the UK, or Kent Hovind's Creation Science
    > Evangelism organization and the like?

    Yes, a sample size of 2 is a bit small, but then AiG is a huge and
    well-known organization that promotes Young Earth Creationism, & hence, I
    would say, a significant example.

    However, I did look at lunchtime at quite a few web-sites by doing a Google
    on "Statement of Faith".

    It is true that many of the Conservative/Creationist sites do put the
    authority of the bible first, notably the Southern Baptist Convention, and
    the RTB site (Hugh Ross). However, some notably do not; the one I remember
    (apart from AiG) was the Vineyard fellowship (which put God and Jesus
    first; the inerrancy issue of scriptures came further down the list).

    However, the one thing they all had in common, except the ASA, was a clear
    statement of the Gospel (though the ASA reference to the creeds (which I
    notice someone has now updated with links to them) implicitly contains the

    Having read all these, I don't necessarily think it's a question of what
    your priorities are as to where you put God and Jesus with respect to the
    authority of Scripture. Some sort of statement on the authority of
    Scripture, even if it doesn't mean inerrancy, is almost axiomatic & it makes
    logical sense to state your axioms first for clarity before making the main
    point (perhaps).

    Therefore, in a way, it makes sense that the first statement in the ASA
    declaration should be on biblical inspiration and authority.

    But I'm still puzzled as to why once the axioms are declared, the theorem
    isn't given. I fully realise that it's going to be non-trivial to change a
    set of words that was arrived at after much discussion, but the absence of
    the name of Jesus is something I find baffling. And if it is not to be used
    for evangelistic purposes, then perhaps the title "statement of faith" is
    not an appropriate one, because it doesn't describe (except via an indirect
    reference), what you actually believe. As a set of statements it describes
    the particular distinctive feature and issues that are of concern to the
    ASA. But it doesn't describe what Christians believe.

    Maybe it is only intended for Christians to read. A Christian is a
    scientist and wants to find an association of other Christians in science.
    Hence such a person is already au fait with the gospel. But one shouldn't
    count on it. And search engines are powerful tools. My Google search on
    "Statement of Faith" found the ASA one quite high up the list. So it's
    quite likely that maybe a non-Christian could stumble on the list, trying to
    find out what Christians believe.

    I also find it hard to believe that there isn't a core of the Gospel that
    most people in the ASA can accept.

    If Christians can't agree on what the Good News is, then surely we are in
    BIG trouble.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jun 17 2003 - 16:49:02 EDT