RE: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More"

See my thoughts below...

In Christ,
Christine

--- Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net> wrote:

> I posted part of the original message to my Southern
> Baptist Sunday
> School class. This was the response from the class
> leader, a truly nice
> guy, a devout Christian, and someone I genuinely
> like and respect:
>
>
>
> Dick,
>
>
>
> I read the attached message.
>
>
>
> I just want to say that I do not accept or agree
> with Science in regards
> to
>
> Christianity.
>
>
>
> I accept God's word as inerrant in its entirety from
> Genesis to
> Revelation.
>
>
>
> I want to first reference: Revelations 22: 18 & 19
> (NASB) (18) "I
> testify
>
> to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of
> this book: if anyone
> adds
>
> to them, God will add to him the Plagues which are
> written in this
> book; (19)
>
> and if anyone takes away from the words of the book
> of this prophecy,
> God
>
> will take away his part from the tree of life and
> from the holy city,
> which are
>
> written in this book."
>
>

I believe that "this book" refers only to Revelations,
not the entirety of the Bible. This is evident from
internal context when it refers to the book as one of
"prophecy"--surely the Gospels and the letters of Paul
cannot be considered "prophecy" in the same sense as
Revelations, Daniel, etc. Also, the external context
denies that this verse refers to the entirety of the
Bible--indeed, when Revelations (and this verse
specifically) was written, there was no "book" called
"The Bible", so it could not possibly refer to it in
this way.

>
> 2nd reference II Timothy 3: 16 & 17 (NASB) (16)
> "All Scripture is
> inspired
>
> by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
> correction, for
> training
>
> in righteousness; (17) so that the man of God may be
> adequate, equipped
> for
>
> eery good work.
>
>
Note the word "inspired"...I do not equate this to
"perfect" or "inerrant"...rather, I take inspired to
mean that the essence of His (historical)
communication with us is contained in the words, but
they are (as I believe David Buller once put it)
revealed within the "trappings" of humanity--trappings
which may include incidental misunderstandings about
the nature of the world that do not undermine the
substance of what God is conveying. The Bible is, as
Martin Luther put it, the manger into which the baby
Jesus is laid--a poor human construct which is only
important because it tells the story of our salvation.
I would also point out that if every word literally IS
from God, then why in I Corinthians does Paul write:
"I am thankful that not one of you did I baptize
except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone might say that
in my name you were baptized. Now I did baptize also
the Stephanas household. Besides, I know not if any
other I did baptize. [1 Corinthians 1:14-16]"--if this
is THE WORD of God, how is it that God didn't remember
if there were any others baptized?

Finally, this verse also specifies what Scripture is
for--it is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
correction, and for training in RIGHTEOUSNESS. In
other words, the intent is spiritual, not physical or
scientific. It pertains to instructing the soul about
who(se) we are, what is right, what is wrong, and
where our ultimate salvation lies. This is not to say
that the Bible cannot or should not be applied to more
mundane earthly matters; but I do mean to say that it
should not be treated in the same manner as a science
or history textbook would be.

>
> Also, one very important point in Hebrews 11:6
> (NASB) "And without faith
> it
>
> is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God
> must believe that
> He is
>
> and that He is a re-warder of those who seek Him."
>
>
>
> Also, by faith we must accept the POWER of God.
>
>
I have no problem accepting the power of God by faith;
and I believe that power includes the ability to speak
truthfully though a myriad of beautifully written
artistic/poetic stories rooted in a history, theology,
and culture that nevertheless had no conception of
modern science; and that this power includes the
ability to create and continually sustain creation
though an awesome, yet rational set of laws unfolding
over astronomical timespans that, like God, are beyond
our full comprehension, and which testifies, as Paul
says, to God's power and deity. It is out of respect
and faith in God's power that I do not limit my
understanding and perspectives only to a worldview
that is ~6,000 years old, but rather embrace the
revelation of the "Language of God", integrating these
in a manner that still honors and upholds past
revelation.
>
> Having said this Dick I just want to say, please do
> not be sending out
> false
>
> doctrine. I will not be discussing this any
> further. As I said earlier
> I
>
> truly believe and accept God's word as being
> inspired by the Holy
> Spirit.
>
>
>
> You are welcome in class just don't be trying to
> lead anyone astray.
>
>
>
> --------------------
>
>
>
> Any comments any of you would care for me to forward
> to him?
>
>
>
> Dick Fischer
>
> Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
>
> Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
>
> <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/>
> www.genesisproclaimed.org
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of George Murphy
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 10:40 AM
> To: Alexanian, Moorad; ASA list
> Subject: Re: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More"
>
>
>
> Moorad -
>
>
>
> Perhaps I should have expressed myself more fully &
> stated the basic
> question in 2 parts: (1) Whether scientific
> knowledge of the world
> should inform our theology? (2) If so, how should
> science inform
> theology? & the 2d question can be broken down into
> (2a) What is the
> general relationship between contributions of the
> sciences to the whole
> of Christian theology? & (2b) How do specific
> scientific results
> contribute to particular theological loci?
>
>
>
> My own answers, in ultra-brief, are:
>
>
>
> (1) Yes, because theology deals with the same world
> that science studies
> - though it isn't limited to that.
>
>
>
> (2a) While science requires no theological input in
> order to study the
> world (methodological naturalism), the knowledge it
> gains has
> theological value only when placed in the context of
> God's revelation in
> history &, in particular, the cross-resurrection
> event.
>
>
>
> (2b) My essay in the Fall 2007 issue of Dialog,
> "Science as Goad and
> Guide for Theology," goes into some detail on
> specifics. This whole
> issue of the journal is devoted to the theme "The
> role of science within
> theology," with a wide variety of responses by
> theologians & scientists.
>
>
>
> As I think I've explained previously here, I don't
> think the distinction
> between "experimental" and "historical" sciences is
> fundamental or of
> great importance for theology.
>
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
=== message truncated ===

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 28 14:01:32 2007