bivalve wrote:
> >Thanks for the replies. I can understand and accept all the information about evolution. Bottom line is I want someone to tell me that I am forgiven, and saved. That I will have peace in this life and rest in the next. And that there is the hope of justice for everyone who's ever suffered at the hands of other people in this life. I've spent some time today looking on Google for articles to help me but there is virtually nothing - the combination "Evolution Redeemer" eventually turned up one article by George here on the ASA site. Everyone is busy defending the science of evolution, which is valid and valuable, but I think it would be helpful if someone could spend more time defending the gospel (not just theism) in the light of your scientific understanding. No wonder the Creationists are so influential.<
> >Perhaps I shouldn't say that. I just want someone to tell me my faith in Christ is certain. Perhaps I should have known better than to watch your debates - I should know my limitations and keep away. Too late now. Sorry! S.<
>
> Part of the difficulty is that scientific understanding does not tell us much about the gospel. Rather, the gospel provides a foundation for scientific understanding. Knowing that the creation is the product of an orderly God Who cares about us, we can have confidence that its study is a worthwhile and productive endeavor that will help us learn how to care for it.
>
> Science can't tell us about being forgiven or saved. This cuts both ways-neither disproof nor proof. There is excellent historical evidence regarding the basic reliability of the New Testament (plenty of details are not too testable, but many are and hold up well, as do the main historic points). One might make some psychological arguments, using scientific evidence about normal human behavior, but these could only go so far as to support the idea that something rather unusual happened. The important implications are theological, understood by faith rather than trying to experiment on God.
>
> Christianity makes better sense philosophically than anything else that I know of, but science can't measure that.
One of the big mistakes in much of the science-theology dialogue is focusing exclusively on the doctrine of creation. This _seems_ to have the advantage of dealing with religious beliefs that are held in common by people from a variety of religious traditions that have some concept of creation. But it means that all of them then ignore their distinctive understandings of creation, divine action, etc. At least for Christianity, this makes literally all the difference in the world.
It is fundamental to Christian faith that the redeemer is the creator, and that God's fullest self-revelation is in the redeemer - i.e., Christ. It is essential then to talk about the latter in order to know who the creator is supposed to be. In particular, the idea of God's self-limitation or kenosis which is crucial to some (& in particular, my!) understanding of God's action in the world originates in Phil.2:5-11 which is about the Incarnation & Passion of Christ.
This doesn't mean that inter-religious dialogue & even cooperation in the area of faith & science should be abandoned. But people from different faith traditions have to get their own understandings of the relationships between science & their religious beliefs clear before any worthwhile dialogue can take place.
Folks like AiG are right in saying that there are essential connections between creation and redemption, but they get the relationships backwards by imagining that that means that Genesis - & a naive reading of Genesis at that - is the foundation of Christian faith.
Shalom,
George
Received on Sat Mar 20 07:37:40 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Mar 20 2004 - 07:37:41 EST