At 08:48 AM 2/10/97 -0500, Bill Hamilton wrote:
>This is an excellent statement of the concerns many of us have. However, I
>do want to quibble with one point. Yes, of course we want to reconcile our
>theology with scientific evidence -- keeping in mind of course that _too_
>close a tie between theology and science is not a good idea, because
>enither science nor theology is perfect, and science especially changes as
>new knowledge emerges. But the more important point is that it takes a
>work of the Holy Spirit to regenerate an individual before he can recognize
>the Gospel for what it is and respond. (Chapter 10 of the Westminsster
>Confession of Faith). All the evidence in the world won't sway an
>individual who is naturally disposed to be God's enemy, as all men are
>until they are effectually called by Christ. So, while we are presenting
>the best evidence we can obtain to our unsaved friends, we had better also
>be praying that the Lord will dispose them to be receptive to His offer of
>redemption. I believe the prayer is mnore crucial than the evidence.
>
As usual I find myself in agreement with you. I did not mean to imply that
one should not pray for those they desire to lead to the Lord. However, I
would say this about too close a tie between science and theology. This
stems from the fear of the beating that theology has taken over the past 4
centuries. Tipler notes:
"Of course, the real reason modern theologians want to keep
science divorced from religion is to retain some intellectual
territory forever protected from the advance of science. This
can only be done if the possibility of scientific investigation
of the subject matter is ruled out a priori. Theologians were
badly burned in the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions. Such a
strategy seriously underestimates the power of science, which is
continually solving problems philosophers and theologians have
decreed forever beyond the ability of science to solve."~Frank J.
Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, (New York: Doubleday, 1994),
p. 7
Just as Christianity adjusted to new data supporting a heliocentric, then a
galactocentric universe, Christianity must adjust in face of new data. The
tie should be as close as we can get it, especially for the historical sciences.
The problem I have is that Christianity should never be advocating something
that is observationally false. This is what has caused our beating over the
past few centuries. Christians believed in a ptolemaic universe and refused
to change. They believed that the sun was spotless, and refused to believe
Galileo. They refused to believe that the earth might be older than 5000
years and to this day people, like I used to, believe in a young universe.
All of these beliefs were observationally wrong and Christianity paid the
price for it. But to do as Klay Lund suggests when he wrote:
>A better approach,
>in my view, is to recognize metaphor and epic tale for what it is, and find
>the spiritual meaning within, instead of the endless and pointless attempt
>to defend an obviously wrong notion (literalism).
seems to me to yield the ground and accede to the statment that we know the
Bible is not to be trusted in matters of history. To me this is very
dangerous. If we acced to this proposition, then Why should I trust an
untrustworthy document for my salvation?
My point has always been that once we agree that there is no history in an
apparently historical text, like the flood, then why should there be history
in the Exodus, the Abrahamic covenant etc. I just don't like agreeing with
my atheist friends that what I use to tell me the path to salvation has no
basis in history or fact.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm