Re: Response from Ross Olson

John W Burgeson wrote:
>
> Ross is not a member of this LISTSERV.
>
> He reviewed George's post which I sent him and had these comments:
>
> Thanks for forwarding. I don't pick up these comments otherwise.
>
> Just a few comments, going backwards, the "disciplines" are "Scripture"
> (Biblical interpretation) and "doctrine" (Theology) as stated in the same
> sentence. Both of which I think are important.
>
> Some YEC are in safe environments, but many have indeed been persecuted.
>
> The part about pointing to a Creator is in there because Paul in Romans
> states that God considers creation to point to Himself so strongly that
> those who suppress the truth are without excuse. I guess I have a
> concern
> about someone whose world view is so far from Scripture that he does not
> make sure it fits with that requirement.
>
> I think the detail is important because the issue is important (although
> not
> central) and the two sides do not always talk about each other as
> brothers
> and sisters should.

Burgy -
        Thanks for passing this on.
        He seems to have missed my point that some of the "details" have a potential for
keeping some people from accepting the statement even though they agree with what should
be its main purpose.
        But as I commented in an earlier post responding to Walt, on re-reading the
statement I saw that it never does state in so many words what should be (IMO) it's main
purpose - affirming that in spite of differences YECs and OECs can still recognize one
another as Christians. I think that the short one that I posted in response to Walt's
suggestion gets to the heart of the matter without unnecessary & possibly divisive
details.
        Concerning "I guess I have a concern about someone whose world view is so far
from Scripture that he does not make sure it fits with that requirement":
        I appreciate the fact that there is a divergence of views about natural
theology, but to dismiss in this way the ideas of Barth, Torrance, Pascal &c suggests a
less than thorough acquaintance with the theological tradition. But even if one accepts
the traditional view of Romans 1, Paul cannot be talking about the Big Bang there. He
must be referring to aspects of the world that any intelligent & observant person of the
1st century could have known.

                                                        Shalom,
                                                        George
         

George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Mon Feb 2 12:51:11 2004