RE: YEC Destroying Faith

From: Glenn Morton <>
Date: Sun Apr 18 2004 - 18:08:34 EDT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Roberts []
> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 1:35 PM
> To: Glenn Morton;
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: YEC Destroying Faith
> Glenn
> I bet you wondered when I was going to jump in!

I thought you already had. :-)

I feel you
> are totally rejecting "accommodation" in which God speaks
> through the biblical writers in ways they would understand.

Wait a minute. There is a clear distinction between telling someone
something true but simple so they can understand it and telling someone
something false and simple so that they can understand it. And by
accommodation, I am using it in the sense my friend Paul Seeley does,
which as I understands, means that God accommodates the true story to
the story in the pre-Jehovah Jews. God accommodated his message to the
science of their day.

Here is a quotation from Paul's book, which illustrates what I am
against. I doubt you will talk me out of being against this:

        "It is then out of respect for the heart condition of those to
whom He spoke that God sometimes drew back from telling the absolute
truth. Rather than forcing upon men with culturally weakened moral or
intellectual capacities the unbearable light of pure truth. He
condescended to adjust His revelatory lesson to their mistaken views. He
gave them milk until they were ready for solid food (John 16:12; I
Corinthians 3:1,2; Galatians 3:23-4:7) and sometimes that milk was a
watered down compromise with the pure truth (Matthew 17:25-27; 19:8;
Acts 16:3)." Paul Seely, Inerrant Wisdom, (Portland: Evangelical Reform,
1989), p. 200

So did he adjust his message to the early Christians? Do we have the
truth today or is it watered down with compromise?

> I can see and understand why you argue the way you do, but I
> think it is a blind alley or a halfway house to the more
> poetic ways of interpreting Genesis and by poetic I dont mean
> non-historical - read psalms 103 to 107 and then we will read
> of OT redemption, creation and the early history of the
> Israelites - ALL IN POETRY. I consider them absolutely
> truthful, very poetic and much is totally historical. For a
> poetic description of mining read Job 28. in that you can
> visualise the way those early miners worked. I first read it
> while working as a mining geologist.

What I argue against is having God say untruthful things to the writers
of the Bible. If we have God saying false things, then I think we have
a major problem.

Paul does follow the logical conclusion of his thesis:

        "Now, it seems to us that what is manifested here is the
built-in obsolescence of the Mosaic law (cf. Hebrews 8:13). Its
legalities were appropriate to the age in which and for which they were
given (cf. Galatians 3:23-25; Matthew 19:8) but, with the progress of
revelation and in particular with the coming of the King and inbreaking
kingdom, the Lord of the Sabbath redefines the law in terms of God's
ultimacies rather than His temporalities." Paul Seely, Inerrant Wisdom,
(Portland: Evangelical Reform, 1989), p. 77

What of Islam? What of Mormonism? What of Sun Myung Moon? All of whom
say that the past revelations are passe and that they superceded
Christianity. This is why his book put me deep into a crisis again. He
almost convinced me that he was right. But what he has done, it form a
false dichotomy. Either God tells the Hebrews what happened in creation
via a modern General Relativity course, or God tells them something not
true. That is a false dichotomy. God could do a simple but true story
which could be understood by people in simpler times, most definitely
NOT simpler people.

> Anyway I have responded to you which is more than the
> (oxy)moronic YEC geologists do on Theology Web. They cannot
> give you an answer,

Amen to that!
> Have a wee dram

I usually do! :-)
Received on Sun Apr 18 18:08:57 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Apr 18 2004 - 18:08:58 EDT