Re: [asa] AIG -- Scientists! Give it up!

--- Vernon Jenkins <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net> wrote:

> Dick,
>
> Some days ago, thinking particularly of Mt.7:15-20, 6:24, I asked, Where do
> these significant matters fit into your scheme of things? - for I'm sure you
> would agree with me that the words attributed to our Lord, Saviour and
> Creator must carry more weight than all others recorded in the J-C
> Scriptures. You replied, suggesting I read Keith Miller's paper,
> "Evolutionary Theory and Continuous Creation". Having done that, I have to
> report that a reasonable answer to my question is not to be found there.
>
> Keith believes "there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and
> a Christian faith with a high view of scripture." He accepts the Bible as
> "authoritative and true in what God intends it to communicate." He continues,
> "...simply accepting the truth of the biblical writings does not indicate the
> meaning of those writings...There is no such thing as an objective reading of
> scripture."

Keith's meaning here is not crystal clear to me. Perhaps he will elaborate.
However, if he means that one should not try to interpret Holy Scripture
without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I will heartily endorse this view.
>
> Dick, I take it that you subscribe to these statements. But if we question
> His words, how are we to know what God intends to communicate to us? It seems
> to me that he (Keith) advocates a 'free-for-all' - a 'build-your-own' gospel
> from the biblical fragments one is prepared to believe! Is there really no
> such thing as an objective reading of scripture? When the Lord speaks - as in
> his 'Sermon on the Mount' - have we the audacity to question what he says? -
> to translate it into words we would prefer to hear? What kind of Christianity
> is this?!

I don't believe this is what Keith is claiming. For my part, I would refer you
to John 16:13. Scripture interpretation without the guidance of the Holy Spirit
is an iffy proposition. Granted that much of Scripture speaks very plainly --
the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, etc. -- so that objective
interpretation is possible. But there are other passages -- Is 53, much of
Revelation, Gen 1-11 where Christians (and Jews in the case of Is 53) disagree
on the interpretation. For those passages and many others you need the help of
the Holy Spirit for understanding. And if guidance from the Holy Spirit is not
forthcoming, the wise course is not to declare definitively that we have the
interpretation. So I ask you, Vernon: Has the Holy Spirit confirmed your
interpretation of Gen 1-11? How about the numerical studies you have done in
Genesis? Has the Holy Spirit confirmed these, or are they just interesting
results of human knowledge applied to the Scriptures?
>
> However, my question was directed to you, Dick. How do you answer the Lord's
> command in respect of a doctrine that yields evil fruit and, further,
> competes with the Scriptures for man's allegiance?

It is not the "doctrine" of evolution that yields evil fruit. Evolution is at
best simply a scientific explanation of _how_ God went about the business of
creating living things. True, people like Richard Dawkins misuse evolution to
back up their atheism, but I believe Richard Dawkins would be an atheist even
if he didn't have evolution as "supporting evidence". Note that he said,
"evolution makes it possibly to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" -- or
words to that effect. What yields evil fruit is the disobedience of men
(Romans 1:21)

Bill Hamilton
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
248.652.4148 (home) 248.821.8156 (mobile)
"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jul 28 08:49:33 2006