Dave Probert wrote:
>>Yes. But the heart can surely rejoice in what the mind does not
understand.<<
I agree. This is a danger we all need to watch. If we do not study an area
relevant to a theological issue (such as geology) it is easy to rejoice in
how bad uniformitarian geology is and how the stupidity of the geologist
keeps him from seeing the evidence of the global flood. When I was a YEC,
and began to learn geology, there were many times I wished I had never gone
into the geosciences. The pain of having to deal with the things my eyes saw
(those things being contradictory to my views of the Bible) was sometimes
just barely bearable. I would seek consolation from my fellow believers(all
of whom did not know any geology), and they would simply not understand the
problem. Or worse still would condemn me for trying to deal with the
intellectual difficulties. I told one friend one time that he was lucky NOT
to have to work in the geosciences! I meant it at the time.
I agree with you only in part when you say
>>Even apart from issues of science, many lose their faith through
experiences of life that fail their expectations (e.g. an unhappy
marriage, observation of suffering, not being rich).
The solution to such loss of faith is not to provide an intellectual
framework for Christianity anymore than it is to provide marriage
counseling or end poverty and disease or promoting mammon.<<
While a scientific construct which fits observational fact into a coherent
picture is most certainly not a cure for someone reeling from a bad marriage,
it most certainly can be a cure for someone who is becoming intellectually
convinced that the Bible is not true. Different diseases require different
drugs.
You wrote:
>>I don't know whether or not OJ is a murderer, but I *know* Him in whom I
have believed, and I *know* that no matter what may *seem* true in
the short-run, He will be ultimately vindicated. Between here and
there my faith may be tested, but I intend to hold fast until the end.<<
I agree that God will be ultimately vindicated. But that does not mean that
my views of how to fit Genesis with Science will be vindicated, nor does it
mean that the theistic evolutionist will be vindicated, nor does it mean that
the YEC views will be vindicated. Our views of what God is trying to
communicate are separate from what He is actually communicating. A case in
point is the 1st century views of what the Messiah would be like and what he
was actually like. While God was vindicated in His prophecies, a lot of
diligent and dedicated, believing Jewish scholars were not. Why should we be
different?
You wrote:
>>I don't want to stand before Him one day and say that I had to stop
believing in Him because of all this `evidence' that I thought might
be true at the time. Afterall, He has warned us in advance:<<
But God has not told "Believe NOT everything you see!" He told us not to be
carried away by every wind of doctrine, but does that mean that we should not
believe Copernicus's view which when it came out was viewed as a "wind of
doctrine"?
God created the universe and we christians often treat it as if it were an
illusion. Nothing can be real if it contradicts what I believe?. (I know
you don't believe this, but it seems that sometimes we approach things in
this fashion.)
You wrote:
>>Christianity is *not* propositional. It is relational. I believe that
it will also turn out to be propositionally true, but that is not
essential at the present time. <<
If the tenets of Christianity are propositionally true, then why should we
not try to find a set of propositions which explain things?
glenn