Thanks for your frank response. If I may immediately comment on
something you said in your penultimate paragraph:
> I'm not sure what you mean by "...at face value" but suspect that it
> means accepting the whole of God's word as understood by Vernon
I think it a little unfair of you to suggest that I have my own
'private' interpretation of the scriptures. Believing God to be
sovereign and completely in control of his creation; believing his
assessment of man - as delivered particularly by the prophet Jeremiah
(Jer.17:9) - to be true; I am, with you, committed to accepting
"The holy scriptures cannot err and the decrees therein contained are
absolutely true and inviolable. But ... its expounders and interpreters
are liable to err in many ways."
I am therefore perplexed that you should baulk at the three criteria I
listed as reasonable requirements of one who had received salvation
through faith. In the light of our discussion so far, perhaps you could
tell me how you view each of the following three passages: Lk.16:19-31,
Mt.24:35-39, and 2Th.2.
Concerning the order of the creation of birds and land animals, you say,
"Please do not confuse the word of God with the interpretation of men."
I don't follow. What is there to be interpreted here? Isn't this a
simple statement of fact that gives the lie to the suggestion that God's
method of creating was 'evolution'? Is it reasonable to believe that he
would contradict himself - and that, in the first chapter of his Book?
Another matter that greatly concerns me is the determined manner in
which members, in general, shut out any consideration of adverse
supernatural activity in respect of this debate. What of Ephesians
6:10-18 and the Christian's armour? Do you consider we are immune from
such attacks in our day, and have no need of these defences?
Sincerely, in Christ,
[Musician, Mining Engineer, and Senior Lecturer in Maths and Computing,
the Polytechnic of Wales (now the University of Glamorgan), 1954-87]