It's time to quit lurking and help Terry Gray (I hope I'm helping) do =
the heavy lifting.
I am in complete agreement with Terry's recent posts and share his =
frustration. As members of the ASA we all subscribe to a Statement of =
Faith. It is quite minimal, making room for a wide variety of =
Christians. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox scientists could =
subscribe to it as well as Protestants. Nevertheless, the ASA Statement =
of Faith does make affirmations that exclude some who profess the =
Christian faith. One must be as orthodox as the Apostles' and Nicene =
creeds. And, of significance for the recent exchange of postings on =
Scripture, one must "accept the divine inspiration, trustworthiness, and =
authority of the Bible in matters of faith and conduct." Now, that =
leaves a lot of room for views on origins. Theistic evolutionists, =
day-age and other OE creationists, and YECs can all subscribe to the =
Statement of Faith, state their particular views, and take their lumps =
from those with other convictions. I appreciate this big tent aspect of =
the ASA. =20
But we have had participants on this list deny that the Scriptures are =
inherently inspired, maintaining that inspiration is the work of the =
Holy Spirit in speaking through the Scriptures to me. One recent =
posting states, "I'd say that the scripture is reporting faithfully what =
the writer PERCEIVED to be the voice of God-and that he was wrong." =
Another contributer terms inerrancy a "horribly slippery word." I could =
cite more examples, but those who have been following this thread know =
what I'm talking about. The long and short of it is that views of the =
Scripture are expressed which are not consistent with the Statement of =
Faith to which we all subscribed when we joined the ASA. Only by making =
words mean what we want them to mean, like the Red Queen, can one claim =
that some of the posts we've read are consistent with the doctrinal =
statement of the ASA. =20
Words DO have an objective meaning (the protestations of =
deconstructionists notwithstanding). Is it coherent to affirm the =
"divine inspiration, trustworthiness, and authority of the Bible in =
matters of faith" and also pick and choose which parts of the Bible to =
accept on the basis of some other criterion (e.g., one's perception of =
what a good and loving God would say or do)? Can one coherently affirm =
the inspiration of the Bible and deny inerrancy? If words have any =
objective meaning, the answer is no.
It may be that some of the contributers to the recent discussion are not =
members of ASA, since anyone can subscribe to the list. Non-members =
have not bound themselves by the ASA doctrinal statement. I hope they =
feel free to continue their contributions to the dialog. But some of =
the heretical (yes, I agree with Terry that that word is appropriate) =
comments have been posted by ASA members. Does not intellectual =
integrity require one to give up one's membership in an organization =
when one no longer is in accord with its basic principles? I am far =
from denying that the makers of statements like the ones I quoted are =
sincere Christians personally devoted to their Savior. I'm not on a =
witch hunt, and don't intend to pursue this matter further; I offer =
these observations to stimulate personal reflection by all concerned. =20
Feel free to reply on or off list.
Bob
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 04 2002 - 10:00:39 EDT