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

From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Sat Feb 18 2006 - 16:17:49 EST

Glenn
You are a dog with a bone. (That's a metaphor!) You have talked yourself into a corner and if you carry on like this you will have to believe in a flat earth created in 144 hours or else regard the bible as junk

Please reconsider things, and realise that we are trying to uphold scripture not deny it

Michael
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: glennmorton@entouch.net
  To: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 1:04 AM
  Subject: Believe it even if it isn't true theology

  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 Sat Feb 18 16:19:11 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Feb 18 2006 - 16:19:11 EST