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

From: Robert Schneider <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>
Date: Thu Sep 01 2005 - 10:19:44 EDT

Glenn, I'm not going to argue with you.

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
To: "'Robert Schneider'" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>; "'Michael Roberts'"
<michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>; "'Bill Hamilton'"
<williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com>; "'Iain Strachan'" <igd.strachan@gmail.com>;
"'Peter Ruest'" <pruest@mysunrise.ch>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 7:31 AM
Subject: RE: How to encourage a former creationist to persevere in faith?

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Schneider [mailto:rjschn39@bellsouth.net]
> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 8:10 AM
>
>>Now, Glenn, please. Michael and I make no claims of divine communication
> to support our interpretations. Do you?
>
> Of course I don't but then I wasn't the one claiming to know God's purpose
> so definitively. That was you and Michael. I find it odd that such a
> claim
> is made--that WE KNOW GOD'S PURPOSE, which frankly sounds a bit YEC-like
> in
> its certitude. How do you know that THIS was His purpose and not something
> else? What basis do you use scholarship to read the mind of God? I
> didn't
> think that was even possible to read the mind of God on things he didn't
> write about and nowhere have I seen a verse in which a prophet says, "The
> lord says, My purpose was merely to teach that there was only one Me."
> Perhaps my bad scholarship missed that verse?
>
> My point is that the certitude you two exhibited is a bit over the top.
> And
> that is why I said it the way I did, because it shows the weakness of your
> theological position. And indeed, it elicited a backstepping here which is
> what I wanted.
>
>> I make no assrtion of infallibility for my reading of Gen. 1, but I do
> share a view with many others who are better biblical
>>scholars than I, and I'll stand by my position. If you have reasons to
> conclude that Gen. 1 is not a theological/liturgical
>>narrative, I would be glad to entertain them. I'm sure we stand together
> in the Lord's love and care.
>
> It is fine to stand on your position based upon scholarly study of those
> one
> likes. But to claim to know God's purpose is beyond our ken. IT is beyond
> the ken of even the best scholars. Besides the fact that it sounds a wee
> bit pompous to say it like Michael did, it is also a bit condescending to
> those uf us hu dunt knew Gud's porpoise an thimk it mite be sumpin else.
>
>
>
>
Received on Thu Sep 1 10:22:11 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 01 2005 - 10:22:21 EDT