Re: [asa] Romans 1:20 (disregard my last post)

That is not Intelligent Design :)
----- Original Message -----
From: <mrb22667@kansas.net>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 8:33 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Romans 1:20 (disregard my last post)

> Sorry about that last post; I accidentally sent it before I had written
> anything
> in it.
>
> Quoting John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>:
>> Suppose then this person converts to deism still from a purely secular
>> point
>> of view and then starts exploring all the world's religions to see if any
>> of
>> their testable truth claims can survive the scrutiny of being compared to
>> the scientific record. And suppose then that after eliminating all the
>> others they conclude that Christianity is valid and real and the Bible is
>> inspired, and therefore they become a Christian.
>>
>> In this scenario, can we so confidently say that "that natural theology
>> does
>> *not* lead a person to Christ" ?
>>
>> Choose your answer carefully because that person is Hugh Ross and that is
>> exactly his testimony.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> John
>
> Two thoughts:
>
> 1. can somebody follow an erroneous path to something legitimate? I ask
> rhetorically, because I think you would all agree we can. Someone may
> have the
> most dubious or immature reasons for seeking a particular person as their
> spouse. But as their relationship grows, IF it does in healthy ways,
> infatuations and lusts may be replaced with real love and God may bless
> the
> union. Doesn't this apply to Christ whom we may approach with frail and
> error-fraught logic, and yet the real relationship eventually supercedes
> the
> faulty foundations that may have initially brought someone on board. God
> can
> use evil -- that doesn't make it any less evil. So it follows that God
> could
> make use of YECism or any other ism for His own purposes. That doesn't
> mean we
> shouldn't strive to correct those things when they are discovered to be in
> error. The error is ours -- not God's.
>
> 2. Your alleged person has already chosen their (non-Christian, but not
> necessarily anti-Christian) metaphysic if they are in this position. To
> repeat
> again briefly:
>> ...starts exploring all the world's religions to see if any of
>> their testable truth claims can survive the scrutiny of being compared to
>> the scientific record.
>
> If science is the measure of what they choose as truth, then they have
> already
> chosen their higher truth: the scientific method. Now they are just
> shopping
> for a compatible religion as a handmaiden to their metaphysic. Yet, if
> somebody follows that path to Christ, then so much the better for
> them! --that
> is, their *destination* is to be commended, thought not necessarily their
> path
> there. God may well use this for Hugh Ross or Mr. Flew, and perhaps they
> would
> even continue to cling to this foundation after (in Mr. Flew's case)
> moving
> another step and becoming Christian. But the path should not be elevated
> to
> some status of being immune to error. God causes ALL things to work
> together
> for good... (not just the things that pass muster of human reason.)
>
> --Merv
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 16 16:06:41 2007