Re: How to encourage a former creationist to persevere in faith?

From: Iain Strachan <>
Date: Sun Aug 28 2005 - 19:23:54 EDT

On 8/22/05, Peter Ruest <> wrote:
> Iain Strachan wrote (21 Aug 2005 21:02:38 +0100):
> > ...
> > I'd take issue with one point:
> >
> >
> > >> I agree with Glenn Morton and Dick Fischer that this requirement is not really
> > >> met by relegating the first few Genesis chapters, wholly or in part, to
> > >> categories like myth and allegory.
> >
> >
> > I don't really like the word "relegating" here as it implies that it's
> > somehow worth less than the allegory.
> I am not sure I understand what you mean here. What would be "worth less than
> the allegory"?

[Replying after a week's holiday].

Sorry! that was just a typo. Brain went into neutral. What I meant to
say was "implies that it is somehow worth less than if it was literal
history". The point I was making was that "allegory", since it may
represent eternal truths, is actually MORE important than "mere

I gues I should clarify what I said about God "tinkering" and fixing a
broken creation. Of course no-one should question how God does things
or could have chosen to do things. If God chose to create by
intervening at times in history with acts of "special creation", then
it's clearly not for me to argue "but that doesn't satisfy my
aesthetic sense", or that it makes it look like God isn't smart enough
to do it without miracles. It is clearly up to God to choose how He
creates. But my current understanding of miracles are that they are
about how God reveals himself to his people & that this revelation is
made complete, and leads up to Jesus Christ, his death on the Cross
and resurrection. That is my understanding of what miracles are for,
and not about understanding how the world/life etc was made. But I
think it would be the height of arrogance to claim that "God counldn't
have done it that way".

Received on Sun Aug 28 19:28:14 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Aug 28 2005 - 19:28:14 EDT