Liberalism and Neo-orthodoxy

Hi everyone,

May I suggest that we on this list are for the most part friends and
fellow believers and that our goal is not necessarily to win
arguments and score points but to spur one another on toward our
common goal of understanding the faith-science relationship.

Thus, it seems to me, that the kind of ridicule and dismissal that
Dick was met with when he made his factual blunder (to put it most
negatively) or his over-generalization (to put it most positively)
seems out of line. I'd suggest that in such instances a note off-line
to correct his mistake is much more appropriate than the public scorn
that was heaped upon him on-line.

That being said, while I do regard theological liberalism and
neo-orthodoxy to be separate entities, and would regard neo-orthodoxy
to be an improvement upon theological liberalism, in my tradition,
that of the conservative Presbyterians represented by the Orthodox
Presbyterian Church and Westminster Theological Seminary,
neo-orthodoxy springs from many of the same roots as liberalism, and
while the language of orthodoxy is much more prevalent, some of the
fundamental postures toward scripture and the historicity of the
Christian faith remain. The critique of theologian/apologist
Cornelius Van Til comes to mind here. I know that many on the list
will strong disagree with Van Til's analysis, but no one can say that
Van Til didn't know Barth. It is said that Van Til's personal copy of
Barth's Church Dogmatics was the most studied and marked up of any
known scholar. Some may even regard the OPC and WTS as
fundamentalists. I will dispute that label, although I will proudly
stand by the right use of that term, i,e. that we affirm the
fundamentals of the Christian faith.

TG

-- 
_________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado  80523
grayt@lamar.colostate.edu  http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801