Thanks for "coming out". I dislike throwing around charges of heresy, for it
depends on what " heresy" means. To me, "heresy" is contradicting the tenets
of the creeds of the church-The Apostles' and Nicene Creeds. I have not
heard anyone deny that God the Father is the creator, That Jesus is the Son
of God, the resurrection of dead, the communion of saints, or the
forgiveness of sins. Therefore, no one has advocated heresy.
It is surprising to many, but nowhere in the historic creeds is there any
insistence that one adhere to a particular view of inspiration of the
Scriptures. One is free to hold a wide variety of views of Biblical
inspiration without being accused of heresy.
N I would be careful about using any other than the traditional definition
of heresy. We know of one ex-YECer who has been branded an apostate around
the Internet because he advocates that evolution is true and compatible with
Christianity. WE know of another person who was disqualified as an elder of
his church because he believed that humans evolved from primates.IMO,
neither of those positions are heretical in the least. Indeed, I consider
them simple truths.
To many, "heresy" often seems to mean "one who believes differently about
certain tenets of Christianity than I do, even if such tenets are not at the
core of the Christian faith.
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of robert rogland
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 8:38 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Scripture and the ASA
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 : Wed Jun 05 2002 - 11:49:36 EDT