Re: Biblical Interpretation Reconsidered

I agree with what George says. You cannot say that belief in a young earth
is heretical as the bible is not unequivocal on the age of the earth

BUT BUT BUT

YEC is heretical for a variety of reasons;
1. It causes division among Christains
2. tends to demonise those who dont accept YEC
3 Uses a plethora of subchristian methods to make its case -
misrepresentation etc etc.
4 Uses bad philosophical and scientific argument so that it is
pseudo-science in the common sense of the word.
5 totally unwilling to listen to counter-arguments
6 Claims that it is the only possible interpreetation for a Christian.

Now there are many on this list I disagree with quite strongly e.g. Glenn's
view of the Flood, forms of concordism which I consider too forced just to
mention two. However they are always presented with a desire for truth and
with integrity so I can respect them even when I disagree. I share a common
aim and purpose with those concerned and that is to present Christ in a
scientific age.

And then we have liberal theological approaches to science and religion.
Peacocke is a fine example. I have known him for years and like and respect
him. Again there is a transparent honesty, even though I oppose his view of
revelation and the person of Christ among other things. He criticises
members of the CIS for being too biblical - too our faces of course and with
a twinkle in his eye! There is again much common purpose.

With YEC there should be much common purpose and on paper there is, but
coutesy of their approach it always degenerates into a shouting match as any
who espouses an old earth is soon dismissed as a heretic or something else.
Exceptions are hard to come by especially among the active YEC as opposed to
the average church member who follows it because they think they ought

Michael.

----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: "William Hamilton" <whamilton51@comcast.net>
Cc: "Jay Willingham" <jaywillingham@cfl.rr.com>; "Josh Bembenek"
<jbembe@hotmail.com>; "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: Biblical Interpretation Reconsidered

> William Hamilton wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, December 23, 2003, at 10:56 AM, Jay Willingham wrote:
> >
> > > Amen and amen.
> > >
> > > Good debate is of great value as well.
> > >
> > > Merry Christmas!
> > >
> > >
> > I have always regarded ASA as being one of the few venues in
> > Christianity where an issue that _ought_ to be debated by Christians
> > but generally isn't for fears of "divisiveness" can be debated. And
> > generally the debate proceeds in Christian love. I would like to
> > preserve this -- I believe it's valuable. So I would oppose ASA taking
> > an official stance on evolution.
>
> My hesitatnt suggestion was not that ASA consider endorsing evolution but
that
> it consider rejecting YEC.
> I was & am hesitant about that for several reasons. The age of the earth
is not
> of fundamental theological importance & I certainly do not want to deny
the Christian
> faith of those who think that the world is 6000 years old or label them
heretics. It
> would be unfortunate for the organization to take a stand on this one
scientific issue
> while allowing for diversity on many others. A person who accepts the
organization's
> Statement of Faith & has a degree in a scientific field but who thinks
that the earth is
> flat could be an ASA member. Why not a YEC? (IMO the levels of
preposterousness are
> about the same.)
> So why make the suggestion? I did this in response to posts that
suggest - & I
> agree - that YEC is a growing threat to scientific integrity and serious
dialogue
> between science and Christian theology. It presents a totally unnecessary
scandal which
> blocks the way to serious consideration of the Christian faith for many
intelligent
> people. ASA is one science-religion organization which, because of its
history &
> composition, has a chance of making a significant impact on the churches &
individuals
> most influenced by YEC. & so it seems worthwhile to ask if it should be
trying to exert
> that influence in ways more explicit than its present policies allow.
> I tossed this out for consideration, but I am still hesitant & think it
would be
> too bad if we had to take this step.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
>
> George L. Murphy
> gmurphy@raex.com
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
>
>
Received on Tue Dec 23 15:16:13 2003