From: George Murphy (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Sep 27 2003 - 09:29:10 EDT
> Walter Hicks wrote:
> > allenroy wrote:
> > > Since the issue of salvation is life or death, it is easy to become exclusive and
> > dogmatic -- so much is at stake.
> > My personal opinion is that all of this has absolutely nothing to do with salvation.
> > Salvation is through Jesus Christ. I personally do not see any relationship between the
> > Gospel and YEC or Glenn Morton Theory or most of what we discuss here on this list.
> Why do we need Salvation by faith in Jesus?
> "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," (Romans 3:23)
> What is sin?
> Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. (1 John 3:4)
> What is the law that a sinner breaks?
> "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"[writings of Moses]
> Jesus replied: " `Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and
> with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like
> it: `Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two
> commandments." (Matthew 22:36-40)
> How does one love God?
> 1. If you love God: "You shall have no other gods before me."
> 2. If you love God: "You shall not make for yourself an idol..."
> 3. If you love God: "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, ..."
> 4. If you love God you will: "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. ... For in six
> days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he
> rested on the seventh day...." (Exodus 20:3-11)
> How does one love your neighbor as yourself?
> 1. If you love your neighbor you will: "Honor your father and your mother, ..."
> 2. If you love your neighbor: "You shall not murder."
> 3. If you love your neighbor: "You shall not commit adultery."
> 4. If you love your neighbor: "You shall not steal."
> 5. If you love your neighbor: "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor."
> 6. If you love your neighbor: "You shall not covet your neighbor's house...."(Exodus
> Who is the Savior?
> "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was
> with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made
> that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. ... The Word
> became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One
> and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:1-4,14)
> So, obviously, Jesus, the Word, is also the Creator God, who asks us, if we love Him, to
> remember the keep the Sabbath holy because He created the biosphere, including us, on this
> planet in 7 days. Jesus became our savior because we have "broken" the laws of love
> including having forgotten the Sabbath celebration of the Creation week.
> It seems to me that Creation is integral to the whole reason why we need and have a
> > We all start with some sort of a bias. Some of us more inclined than others. That is a
> > personality thing, not some conscious decision. I, for example, am a strong "P" (meyers
> > briggs) type personality. I have a hard time accepting any thing above (or below) the
> > 50% level. Those who have a personality that reaches positions easily, "J", are more
> > likely to formulate a "world view" and then defend
> > it vigorously. So we all make the data fit that world view. That makes us "human" --
> > not "inspired by the Holy Spirit".
> I am I, S/N, T/F, P. Under some circumstances I'm strong NT and others SFP. But
> personality type has nothing to do with the bias we start within in science. There are
> certain axioms or presuppositions which are needed for science to be done. And the basis
> for those presuppositions come from philosophical foundations regardless whether one
> realizes it or not. And most people are not aware of these philosophical foundations.
> The philosophical foundations we work within, knowingly or unknowingly, biases the science
> we do. I think it is better to choose the philosophy rather than accept one by default.
> > The church that I joined requires that one look upon the Bible as inspired by God for
> > guidance on faith and morals. If it was required to accept the Bible as "infallible", I
> > would not have joined that church. My reason for this is what people do with the concept
> > of "infallible".
> I do not believe that the Bible is "infallible" nor do I believe in "verbal inspiration."
> The Bible is the Word of God inspired by the Holy Spirit but written by fallible men in
> fallible human language. The guarantee that we can learn the truth that God wants us to
> know from the Bible is by the leading of the Holy Spirit who Jesus gave us to teach all
> truth. If we truly let the Holy Spirit lead us into truth, we will not be the only ones
> who hold that truth.
> > What that often means is that they intend to take the Bible as a science textbook. I
> > reject that notion. If God wanted the Bible to be a science textbook, He would have so
> > indicated by giving us Maxwell's' Equations instead of saying "and there was light".
> Since when do you have the right to set terms for what God should do? I do not believe
> that the Bible is a science text book. However, it is a record of observations and
> revelations by God and man. From those observations and revelations we draw theological
> conclusions. I believe that we can also develop a christian philosophy within which are
> found the necessary presuppositions with which to do science. The boundaries within which
> science is done are also defined by the observations and revelations.
> > I believe that _you_ believe that the flood was "Global" but I cannot imagine why.
> > Those who wrote that portion of the Bible clearly considered the "world" to be an area
> > local to them.
> That is your interpretation that that is what they believed. I believe that it is obvious
> that the description of the flood is global. The question is, which interpretation is
> right? I believe that the answer can be found in how the rest of the Bible interprets the
> flood. The answer cannot be found in science. The dictum for us to follow is to let the
> Bible interpret itself. How did Jesus present it? He compared it to his Second Coming.
> If the Flood was a local event, is his Second Coming to be merely a local event too? Was
> Jesus, the Word, the Creator God, confused about or ignorant of the true facts? We are
> counseled to go "to the law and the testimony" to discern if someone is teaching truth or
> error. We are to compare the new with the old (not the other way around), to see if the
> new is correct. We are not counseled to turn to man's new understandings of the world to
> find truth.
> > You are not a YEC. You are not an OEC. You are another person (inspired by the Holy
> > Spirit?) who has a different view than everyone else -- just like everyone else on
> > this list has a different view than everyone else. Some people are just more different
> > than others.
> My OU/YCW-FC (Old Universe/Young Creation Week -- Flood Cataclysmistism) view point is one
> that is shared by a large portion of the 12 million or so SDAs around the world. The SDA
> scientists at GRI (Geoscience Research Institute) of Loma Linda University also accept
> this position. I find it amusing that Michael Roberts nearly complements me for my
> adoption of an OU position as a step in the right direction away from YECism. Especially
> when this position (based as it is upon Revelation 12:7-9, Ezekiel 29:12-19, Isaiah
> 14:12-17, Job 1:6-12, and other related texts) has been promoted by Ellen White since at
> least 1888.
Creation is ineed an important part of Christian belief - & not just as a
necessary prelufe to ideas about sin & salvation. Christianity is not only about some
internal spiritual realm but about the real world. This is why Christianity has always
had to resist (with greater or lesser success) gnostic ideas that salvation is about
somehow escaping from the physical world & "going to heaven."
Gaining some understanding of the relationships between scientific knowledge
about the world and belief in creation is necessary if we are to be able to formulate
the Christian message in a convincing way in a scientific age. But that doesn't mean
that any particular way of describing that relationship, or any particular scientific
theory, should be given dogmatic status.
But ways of interpreting scripture that manifestly conflict with what we know
about the world should be rejected if there are other ways of interpreting it which are
at least as good from the standpoint of scripture itself & which don't conflict with
scientific evidence. In particular, the idea that either the earth or the whole
universe was created in 6 24 hour days just doesn't work. All that Allen's arguments
for a literal creation week do is to help us understand why such an interpretation is
important for those who think that the torah's rules about the seventh day of the week
are still binding upon Christians.
George L. Murphy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 27 2003 - 09:30:18 EDT