Bill Hamilton wrote:
>I don't believe Glenn and I are really very far apart on this issue.
I agree with this. We have butted heads over this issue before usually
with the result that I have a sore head. :-)
> I
>totally agree that we ought to investigate correlations between the Bible
>and geology, paleontology, anthropology, etc. However, if we find events
>in the Bible that steadfastly resist our efforts to tie them in with events
>verifiable from the sciences, then what do we do? If we decide the Bible
>has reduced credibility, or that science has reduced credibility because of
>a failure to be able to correlate the two, we lose. In these sorts of
>cases it seems to me better to simply admit that we can't correlate
>Scripture with science.
I agree up to a point. There are always going to be things within any
system of thought which we can not solve. It may be that the future holds the
solution; it may be that there is no solution; or it may be that science or
the Bible is wrong. The problem I have is that all too easily we take the
solution that we don't have to worry about the issue because the future
will show us the solution. I have seen YEC's avoid the problems their views
have by the "future will save us" approach. Henry Morris wrote of the post
flood world:
>"Somehow new continental structures and mountains would have to rise up
>accompanied by the opening of new ocean basins into which the floodwaters
>could drain. How this was accomplished - whether by divine miracle or by
>natural tectonic readjustments - may remain to be determined by future
>studies" _Biblical Creationism_, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993,
>p. 40
In this way, Morris escapes the force of an argument against his position.
If the future will bring a solution to his problems, he can hold his
position.
But Morris' appeal to the future to save him is as invalid as is Davis
Young's view that the future has no possibility of saving concordism or
literalism.
He wrote:
>It is doubtful that, after centuries of failure, either strategy is going
>to be effective in the future." "Scripture in the Hand of a Geologist,"
>Westminster Theological Journal, 49, 1987, p. 293
How many centuries of failure to fly went by from the first time man thought
about the problem til it was solved? I often cite Genesis 11:6 "The Lord
said, 'If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this,
then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.'" NIV
This makes me cautious of taking Young's position on this issue.
Bill wrote
> Different people have different threshholds of
>difficulty -- where they will stop trying to correlate Scriptural and
>nonScriptural knowledge. Somehow we have to respect the perseverance of a
>Glenn Morton who keeps on trying, and the Joe Doaks who came to church
>immediately after shutting down his lathe Wednesday night, and doesn't want
>to hear any science. But he's just as convinced as Glenn that Jesus Christ
>is his savior.
>
You are absolutely correct that different people have different thresholds
of pain. If we give up, those who have my level of pain will all be
atheists.
But I do know that some would prefer to replace the word "perserverance"
with "pig-headedness." :-)
>Why do I accept the Scriptures? Because in 1972 I decided to give the New
>Testament one more try. I read it that summer, and I came to church and
>heard the testimony of Christians in their 40's and up, telling what Jesus
>Christ had done in their lives. I began to have a strong conviction that
>what I read, and what I was hearing from Christians was true, and by July I
>had accept Jesus as my savior. It was not the historical accuracy that
>convinced me. Years later, when the pastor of my current church explained
>the Reformed view of regeneration
>to me I understood what had happened: The Holy Spirit was at work
>preparing me that summer, so that I could recognize that Jesus Christ is
>truly Who He claims to be. Without that I would have never accepted Him.
>I am glad that the Bible is as historically accurate as it is. I wouldn't
>expect anything less of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But He had to
>reach out to me before _any_ amount of propositional truth would do any
>good.
>
I am convinced that God reaches out to us all in ways that are most effective
to each of our personalities. For that I am very grateful.
Your Brother in Christ,
glenn