Re: Believe it even if it isn't true theology

From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
Date: Fri Feb 17 2006 - 20:52:28 EST

*And lastly, I think I see exactly why my arguments along this score seem to
find such resistance here on the ASA list. Even if one were to prove that
a theological approach is logically flawed, one can still beleive it is
true.*

But Rich's statement about Jesus not necessarily being the actual Son of God
was rather strongly rebutted here, and Rich himself later said he doesn't
actually think along those lines, so I don't think your observation is
correct. Regardless, there's obviously a huge difference between
harmonizing general and special revelation on non-essential matters such as
the means of creation and rejecting for no apparent reason a basic and
central doctrine such as the divinity of Christ.

On 2/17/06, glennmorton@entouch.net <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
>
>
> Been busy so this is late. Rich wrote:
>
> *>I never said Jesus was not the Son of God. In fact, above I say if he
> was proven only to have been a man tomorrow, I *
> *>would continue to regard him as the Son of God. I never said if he was
> only a man, that he would necessarily be an *
> *>imperfect, sinful man. You did.*
>
> This illustrates what is so wrong with the liberal apologetic. It is the
> same thing that I complain about with the
> allegorical/metaphorical/accommodationalist(Hencerforth the AMA) approach to
> Genesis. Let me say this louldly
>
> *If Jesus were proven to have only been a man tomorrow, I would no longer
> regard him as the Son of God.*
>
> This believe-it-even-if-it-is-untrue approach to Christianity, to Genesis,
> to Jesus' divinity is so logically flawed that if applied in real life would
> lead to absurdities like:
>
> I used to beleive that the sky was purple with pink polkadots but in spite
> of it having been proven that the sky is blue I will continue to believe
> that the sky is purple with pink polkadots.
>
> This approach also undermines the moral authority of the AMA approach to
> tell the YECs to face reality with the sciences. How can we sit here and
> throw stones at the YECs telling them that they have to believe the truth
> even if it violates their theology, but then, we make statements like that
> above? Why is it ok for us to believe it even if it is untrue when we won't
> let the YECs beleive their untruth. After all they often state that they are
> doing the same thing with statements like:
>
> * "The difference is this: we believe the Bible must take
> priority over scientific theories, while they believe
> scientific theories must determine our Biblical
> interpretations.
> "It all seems to us to hinge on one overriding question.
> Do we really believe the Bible to be the God's inerrant Word or
> not? If the Bible is really the Word of our Creator God, then-
> -by definition--it must be inerrant and authoritative on every
> subject with which it deals." *Henry Morris, "Old Earth
> Creationism, Back to Genesis No. 100, April 1997, p. b
>
> *"Do we believe the Bible or do we believe the
> speculations of scientists? Scientists believe death began
> millions of years before man evolved onto the scene. The Bible
> records that death began with Adam.*" ~ Jobe Martin The Evolution
> of a Creationist, (Rockwall, Texas: Biblical Discipleship
> Publishers, 1994), p. 45.
>
> Both these YECs clearly beleives that which is not true just like the
> statement above claims that one would believe Jesus is the Son of God even
> if it were proven that he were merely a man...Maybe I should try to get
> someone to beleive I am the Son of God, after I all I have been proven over
> and over again to be merely a fallible man. And maybe we should cease
> looking our noses down on the YECs who believe that which can't be true!
>
> And lastly, I think I see exactly why my arguments along this score seem
> to find such resistance here on the ASA list. Even if one were to prove
> that a theological approach is logically flawed, one can still beleive it is
> true. It all goes back to Uncle Hub's statement in the movie "Second Hand
> Lions:
>
> "Just because something isn't true doesn't mean you can't believe it."
>
> Have we all entered Wonderland?
>
>
Received on Fri Feb 17 20:53:12 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Feb 17 2006 - 20:53:13 EST