Jonathan Clark wrote
>WHAT DO WE LOSE FROM THE TOC [theology of creation] BY USING ONLY THE NT?
>
>1. The statements about God as creator and sustainer in the NT are rather bald. I for one would think the doctrine poorer (though not less true) with out the rich illustrations of them from Job and Psalms. Not to mention the loss to our imaginations.
>4. Human accountability as steward of creation is not clear. We would lose much by not having Genesis 1 and 2 and Psalm 8 for reference. The best we could do would be to extrapolate from the use in Hebrews 2 of Psalm 8 and perhaps the parables of the servants.
[me]These receive some coverage (though not as extensive as in the OT) in the Lord's comments on the sparrows and lilies.
>
>The NT shows the centrality of the cross to the whole creation drama, our faith, and our hope. This centrality of the cross (not of mere creation) shows the heresy (and I make no apology for such a strong word) of one AiG poster which I remember saying "Answers in Genesis. Help us make creation a foundation of faith".
[me]The ICR provides similarly heretical claims-come to their seminar and learn why creation is essential to evangelism. Such disregard for theological correctness is much more dismaying to me than the scientific flaws, especially in the failure of the church to notice.
One item that is entirely OT is any possible justification for young-earth claims. This probably accounts for the particular focus on parts of Genesis. However, Genesis 1 also provides some of the best verses for careful stewardship of creation, an aspect that seems characteristically neglected by young-earth sources. Is there any YEC environmentalism?
Dr. David Campbell
"Old Seashells"
Biology Department
Saint Mary's College of Maryland
18952 E. Fisher Road
St. Mary's City, MD 20686-3001 USA
dcampbell@osprey.smcm.edu, 301 862-0372 Fax: 301 862-0996
"Mollusks murmured 'Morning!'. And salmon chanted 'Evening!'."-Frank Muir, Oh My Word!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 05 2001 - 12:48:28 EST