Re: I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG

On Saturday, December 27, 2003, at 04:31 AM, Michael Roberts wrote:

>> On a related theme to respond to William Hamilton who did not like my
>> YEC
> is a heresy argument. I should have said "heresy" originally meant
> what split
>> the church down the middle into oppposing factions. YEC qualifies cum
> laude for this, think of the witch hunts against Don Wonderly and
> Howard van
> Til, and their nastiness in alleging nonYECs reject the bible dont
> believe in
> the biblcal God or the atonement - all said to me recently in a public
> meeting with these "harmless" YEC followers cheering and hissing
> "heretic". I will
>> respond to WH
OK. With this definition of heresy I can see where you're coming from,
although
I think the accusation of heresy is going to be taken as theological
heresy, which
is quite another thing. I'm in Wally's camp here: I still believe
there are
YEC's who can be reached with diplomacy. I'm particularly hopeful for
the younger generation.
One of my sons went to Calvin College,where an old earth was taught
(and to a large extent evolution
was taught -- a few faculty members had doubts about evolution). The
other went to Wheaton College,
where, again, an old earth and evolution were taught (and again there
were a few faculty members
who had doubts about evolution) But even with some faculty members
expressing doubts about
evolution, my sons got a far better science education than I had
expected. A generation is coming through our universities for whom
evolution is not a big deal -- it's just good science, or at least
plausible science.
Of course there are schools like Cedarville College that still teach
YEC as science, but this belief has been some time developing and it
will take some time to deal with it.
>>
>>
>> No. The point is simply that we should not accuse someone of heresy
>> unless
>> they are really engaging in it.
>> For example, the following, lifted from a post by Michael Roberts,
>> with
> all
>> due respect to Michael, IMO
>> accuses YEC's of heresy without cause:
>> YEC is heretical for a variety of reasons;
>> 1. It causes division among Christains
>> So does denominationalism.
>> MARGINAL COMPARED TO YEC, BAPTIST GRAHAM IS LOVED BY CHRISTIANS OF ALL
>> DENOMINATIONS (EXCEPT AT BJU)
>> 2. tends to demonise those who dont accept YEC
>> So do certain doctrinal distinctions.
>> NOT TO THE SAME EXTENT. AS AN ANGLICAN I CONSIDER THE DIFFERENCE
>> BETWEEN
>> MYSELF AND A SOUTHERN BAPTIST MINISTER FRIEND TO BE MINOR, AS DOES
>> HE. WE
>> DIVIDE OVER BAPTISM, BISHOPS, INERRANCY AND EVOLUTION BUT CAN ALWAYS
>> SMILE
>> ABOUT AND RECKON THE OTHER IS HONESTLY SEEKING TRUTH
Try plunking an Arminian in a hard-line Calvinist Church. Or vice
versa.
>> 3 Uses a plethora of subchristian methods to make its case -
>> misrepresentation etc etc.
>> So do some doctrinal camps when disparaging other doctrinal camps
>> I HAVE YET TO COME ACROSS MANY FROM GROUPS SUCH AS ANGLICANS, BAPTIST,
>> LUTHERANS CALVINISTS ETC.
Again, Calvinists tend to misrepresent Arminians, Arminians tend to
misrepresent Calvinists. Neither is
doing it deliberately -- they just don't communicate.
>> 4 Uses bad philosophical and scientific argument so that it is
>> pseudo-science in the common sense of the word.
>> To a scientist or a philosopher this is "heresy" MOST WILL FOLLOW ME
>> AT
>> THIS POINT UNLESS THEY ARE TOTALLY COMMITTED TO A HEAVY EDINBURGH
>> STYLE OF
>> SCIENCE STUDIES OR THE LIKES OF FEYERABEND .
If you want that to impress me you'll have to tell me what a "Heavy
Edinburgh style of science studies" is and remind me what Feyerabend
taught.
>>
>> I maintain that most YEC's are not trained in
>> the sciences or philosophy, so this behavior can be characterized as
>> ignorance, IS IT IGNORANNCE TO MISQUOTE AND USE SUCH POOR ARGUMENTS
>> UNLESS
>> IT IS OF THE INVINCIBLE KIND?
As I say below, most creationists in the pews (as opposed to those on
the speaker's circuit) are not trained in the sciences, and not getting
their rhetoric from primary sources, so yes, I believe it's ignorance.
>> but I'd hesitate to
>> characterize as heresy in a Christian sense.
>>
>> 5 totally unwilling to listen to counter-arguments
>> The YEC's make the same accusation of us. WITHOUT THE SAME JUSTICE
But in _their_ view it _is_ justified.
>> 6 Claims that it is the only possible interpreetation for a Christian.
>> So do some denominations
>> MOST DONT

OK, Michael, for each of my quibbles above you say in essence "but not
always". YEC's come in a variety of flavors. Some will listen to
reason. Why bias the ones who will listen to get in a few clever
potshots at those who won't?

I maintain that the only way that is eventually going to work is to
first convince them of your Christianity (and that is done not by
shouting, "I'm a Christian, **** it," but by practicing Christian love.
Next work on convincing them that an old earth is biblically possible.
Once you get them to that point it's probably best to leave them alone
for a while. You could find out how they define "random" and correct
them if they define it as "uncaused". But some folks will stop at an
old earth or some form of progressive creationism. I know the above
works because it worked with me.
>>
Bill Hamilton Rochester, MI 248 652 4148
Received on Sun Dec 28 06:40:10 2003