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

From: Vernon Jenkins <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
Date: Tue Aug 30 2005 - 17:50:34 EDT

Hi Iain,

Welcome back! I trust you've had a relaxing holiday.

In your recent email you said, "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 have you considered what the Lord Jesus himself had to say about
miracle? You'll find his slant on the matter clearly stated in Jn.10:37,38
and, again, in Jn.14:11. He was in no doubt that the witnessing of a
miracle - followed by an honest assessment of what had taken place - had the
power, of itself, to lead a person to an understanding of Truth..

Kind regards,

Vernon

----- Original Message -----
From: "Iain Strachan" <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
To: "Peter Ruest" <pruest@mysunrise.ch>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 12:23 AM
Subject: Re: How to encourage a former creationist to persevere in faith?

> On 8/22/05, Peter Ruest <pruest@mysunrise.ch> 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
> history".
>
> 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".
>
>
> Iain.
>
Received on Tue Aug 30 17:53:58 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 30 2005 - 17:53:58 EDT