Re: [asa] restrained accommodationism?

Merv wrote:

> Or is my original impression correct, and you just find yourselves engaged
> with
> a vocal group of well-researched and persistent concordists (who do indeed
> bring a great wealth of knowledge and perspective to the debate ? don’t get
> me
> wrong.)
>

I don't know about the rest of the people on the list, but I
ended up coming to faith while I was a student at the university.
After reading St. Augustine's writing, I do have to admit that
it bears up with a lot of my own observations. How I ever ended
up here as a Christian was an act of Grace, and I know I never
could have arrived here of my own intellectual effort. Indeed,
it surely would have lead me a far different way; quite likely
both rejecting and disparaging Christianity.

So to me, the bible and Christians who have lived by it, represent
a guidebook that reflects more than 5000 years of faith and
growth in our understanding of this matter of truth. My
understanding as a Christian has also grown, so even the
reasons for my own faith have gradually evolved (there's that
word again) as I have lived out my life so far.

As others had said, everyone here accommodates to some extent,
everyone also concords to some extent. So you are looking at
varying shades of gray. I'm not decided myself exactly where
I fit in that spectrum; I see validity to views that Dick and
Glenn put forward, I see validity to views that George or Paul
put forward. Perhaps I have absorbed more of an Asian way
of viewing the matter, but there are times I feel both are
basically right, or wrong, however you want to look at it.
I do wish we would restrain the ridicule, as we should learn
from each others faith, not discourage it.

At the end of the day, I think one of the brighter things I
see of ASA is that people have shown signs of adapting their
understanding of scripture to the world around them. The so
called concordists have tried to find ways that science fits
_with_ scripture, rather than force science to fit scripture.
Likewise, the so-called accommodationalist have often tried
to glean out more of the message of scripture, its context,
and its real purpose. How far each should go is a matter of
debate, and that seems to be where the heat comes. In the end,
they have been largely working in (what I think is) a better
direction regardless of their general strategy.

We should not lose sight, that conversion of the unbeliever
seems only to come via the holy spirit, and all
this intellectual effort is only understandable when one
has already crossed there by way of Grace. So I think it is
our faith and our commitment to Jesus Christ that most matters.
I doubt that anyone has ever picked up a book written in an
accommodationalist or concordist direction, and said (by their own
intellectual understanding), "ah, I see the light!". I am sure, however,
that some people who were already being worked on by Grace,
may have been reached by the God during their reading.
But any angle on "reasons to believe" (regardless of the A
type or the C type) will not appear as true reason without
Grace.

So I guess my standard closing fits yet again.
By Grace we proceed,
Wayne

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jul 3 07:41:13 2006