Re: Glenn wrote:

Glenn R. Morton (
Thu, 21 May 1998 21:06:12 -0500

At 04:09 PM 5/21/98 -0600, John W. Burgeson wrote:
>Sounds good, but nobody has "all the facts," Glenn. Otherwise, if
>you & I are looking at one particular data set, I guess I'd have to
>agree. Yet it is certainly not
>that simple. Most real facts are raw data; much of what we call "fact"
>is, indeed, an interpretation of that data.
>But you knew that.

In large measure I agree with you. However, take the geocentric vs.
heliocentric solar system. It is a fact that the earth goes round the sun
and not the other way around. Even though this is deduced from a chain of
reasoning (an interpretation), it is still a fact. The geocentric view
cannot explain at all the observed stellar parallaxes. So while the
heliocentric view is an interpretation of the data it is a fact because all
other options have been ruled out.
>>> But because of my view of facts
>and interpretations, I simply find it very difficult to see how a
>historical religion can be true, when it isn't true historically. >>
>Have you ever read Phillip's YOUR GOD ID TOO SMALL? Published quite a few
>years ago. Possibly pertinent. Maybe not. I see your point; I just don't
>perceive it as terribly pertinent to the Christian faith.

I tried to read that long ago, unfortunately, I don't remember much about it.

>Second, suppose totally convincing evidence (I mean OVERWHELMING
>EVIDENCE) was suddenly found which validated your particular model 100%.
>Would that make a non-Christian, Ed Brayton for instance (pardon the
>reference, Ed), decide to become a Christian? Were I Ed, or were I in the
>same mindset as I was at age 26 or so, it would be a tremendously
>INTERESTING story; it would have little, if any, effect on a decision
>that I should regard Jesus the Christ as my Lord. It just would not be
>particularly pertinent.

No, as I have said many many times, no origins view is useful in
evangelism. No origins view, if verified would convert many who have left
the faith and that is not the point at all of apologetics IMO. It is
useful in discipleship. It is useful to prevent more Ed Brayton's leaving
the faith for what they perceive as its irrelevance and lack of
historicity. (Ed you are a fine fellow, but I would prefer that Christians
didn't leave the faith) If our faith doesn't offer real history (as modern
science does) then it becomes belief for belief's sake. We believe in order
to believe and be saved. To me that makes little sense.

>Sure -- you could use it (and probably would) to argue logically that
>since the flood was now proven to be accurate history, that one must
>logically take the next step and accept Jesus as Lord. But Glenn, such
>"logic" is, in the end, futile. Generations of people have believed
>completely in that "logic," and have yet rejected your Lord and my Lord.
>It did not work then; it will not work ever.

Sorry, but I have never in the past few years ever said that origins is
useful in evangelism. I think we misuse the origins issue terribly. So the
above really doesn't apply to me. The only thing I can think of that I
might have said in this regard is that it does drive people away from the
gospel and it does, but I would also add that verification would not
attract them back either.

>>>The importance of it lies in the difficulties that people like Ed and I
>have when we are asked to believe that what is true has no historical
>content. Our views of truth require that history be real. >>
>OK, what history? All of Scripture? Some? On what basis?

I do think that one must pay attention to the type of literature. Psalms
is a terrible place to get science and history from. While one may argue
that early Genesis is poetry, one must also acknowledge that Genesis 6-11
is written in the same style as Genesis 12-50 which we believe is
historical. At least from Genesis 2 on, I have difficulty accepting that
Genesis is written as a poem and it is not identified as a parable as are
many of our Lord's parables.
>Glenn -- it takes two things for one to become a Christian (I think).
>1. A willingness to believe.
>2. The action of God's Holy Spirit working with that willingness.

But once again, I am not advocating using origins as a evangelism tool. It
isn't such a tool in any sense. I personally have never found it useful in
attracting people to the Lord and I don't use it in my evangelism.


Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information