RE: [asa] AIG's weakly message

Good point but the difference is that the YEC's will say all the death and
suffering that was used in the Bible was ushered in through man's sin and
therefore not God's ideal plan, as opposed to the "death before the fall"
which apparently was, and is therefore the key hang-up for the YEC's. I have
spoken to many YEC's who have admitted to me that if pressed, they could
accept an old earth if they had too, but death before the fall is the
showstopper and therefore their litmus test for orthodoxy.
 
Fortunately, I was really never that familiar with the details of YECism to
appreciate this nuance but I really had my eyes opened to this after reading
"Peril in Paradise" by Mark Whorton of www.rocketscienceministries.org. He
is a former YEC and unpacks all the theological baggage of YECism and takes
on what exactly is meant by a creation that was "very good" and how they
over interpret that to mean "perfect".
 
John

  _____

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Merv
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 1:33 PM
To: Carol or John Burgeson; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] AIG's weakly message

What happened to Templeton is a warning for us all today. He went to
Princeton University and was taught to believe in the evolutionary teaching
of "millions of years." He recognized that if this were true, then God used
death, bloodshed, suffering and disease for millions of years as part of His
creative process-and then called this very good.

All through his book, Templeton wrote that there can't be a God of love
because of all the death and suffering in the world. The teaching of
"millions of years" destroyed Templeton. Don't compromise, as he did, and
destroy your faith.

"Weakly" message? --- shame on you, John, you couldn't resist could you?
:-)

Regarding the complaint about a God of love causing death and suffering,
Christians who read their Bibles didn't need evolution to introduce us to
that discomfort. The Old Testament is full of it. Anyone finds a God who
presides over calamity to be unconscionable had better refrain from reading
their Bibles. Doesn't mean we have a good answer for it except to
dismissively assert that God is sovereign --- just means anyone who gets
shook up over this "new" challenge from science apparently hasn't
adequately withstood the shaking from within their own faith.

--merv

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Feb 10 16:56:52 2007