Hi Dick,
Some advice. When I was younger, I thought I had to tell people things
many times, as if they would forget. I've since learned that people
have great memories. You don't have to mention anything more to the
class leader, esp. since he doesn't want to hear it. The leader now
knows where you stand. He will now be watching your life. If you show
the fruit of the spirit, he'll be forced to deal with your theology. If
you act disruptive, he can write you off.
Going forward, you can just now make little comments as appropriate.
For example, a passage may come up that relates to the flood or creation
(I'm surprised how often this happens). At that time, you can give a
relative QUESTION that can make them think, and give your answer if they
are open.
The point is to create and maintain fellowship as well as deepening
truth. You can also tell them you are a creationist... though not a YEC
or OEC. .. there is more than one kind of creationist.
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dick Fischer
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 10:09 AM
To: ASA
Cc: Edthomas351@aol.com
Subject: RE: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More"
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."
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.
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.
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
www.genesisproclaimed.org <http://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/
----- Original Message -----
From: Alexanian, Moorad <mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu>
To: George Murphy <mailto:gmurphy@raex.com> ; ASA list
<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 9:09 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More"
George,
We must qualify what we mean by "scientific knowledge." If I
understand by that term results obtained by the experimental sciences,
then that kind of knowledge has very little to do with our theology.
Therefore, there is no conflict whatsoever between, say, the Christian
faith and the results of experimental science. Of course, one may infer
a Creator from the fact that things do exist and His rationality by the
heavy mathematics that is needed to develop the laws of Nature. The
historical aspect of the historical sciences gives rise to potential
conflicts. Everyone must scrutinize the assumptions that are being made,
especially in the analysis of unique, past events.
Moorad
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
[mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 7:12 PM
To: ASA list
Subject: Re: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More"
God's action in the world is indeed one of the major issues in
science-theology dialogue but it isn't the only one. The question of
how scientific knowledge of the world should inform our theology is, if
anything, even more fundamental.
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: Alexanian, Moorad <mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu>
To: George Murphy <mailto:gmurphy@raex.com> ; David
Opderbeck <mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com> ; John Walley
<mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com>
Cc: _American Sci Affil <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 3:45 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More"
George, does it not boil down always to the question of
how God interacts with His creation, which is the apex of all
theological/philosophical questions?
Moorad
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
[mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 3:23 PM
To: David Opderbeck; John Walley
Cc: _American Sci Affil
Subject: Re: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More"
Of course it's not just "Church: bad; Wilson: innocent."
But our concern should not just be to absolve the church from blame.
Churches in general haven't done a very good job over the past few
centuries of dealing with issues raised by science and technology -
especially biological evolution. Even "liberal" churches in which most
clergy have no problem with evolution usually haven't said anything
about these issues unless people ask explicit questions about them. &
people often don't ask pastors &c the questions they have because
they're afraid of the response they'll get. & the reason clergy don't
have any problems with evolution is often because they don't really
understand it & don't take the trouble to learn.
Churches - & clergy in particular - need to be
pro-active about these matters, bringing them up in appropriate &
sensitive ways in educational settings & sermons. They need to create
an atmosphere which conveys an openness to issues raised by science &
technology & which encourages people to voice the questions & concerns
that they have. Clergy & others involved in Christian education can't
be & needn't be expert in all scientific areas (who can?), but should be
interested in them & have some tentative ways of dealing with the major
theological issues which are involved. There's nothing wrong with
responding to a question with "I don't know but I'll try to find out" or
"I'll try to see where you can get an answer."
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: David Opderbeck
<mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>
To: John Walley <mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com>
Cc: _American Sci Affil <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] E.O. Wilson "Baptist No More"
I suppose the point here is that the Church was
at fault for not giving Wilson other options. Perhaps there is a fair
point there given the particulars of Wilson's upbringing. But what if
Wilson's response had been to continually ask God to help him better
understand the truth. Would Wilson then have found organizations like
the ASA that existed at the time? Would he have found friends and
mentors to help him work through the questions everyone faces when they
grow out of a childish fundamentalism into a more mature faith? Would
he have felt freer to question some aspects of "evolution" as a
metanarrative while at the same time broadening his understanding of
theology and scripture? In short, do we really have to buy hook, line
and sinker the story: "Church: bad; Wilson: innocent?"
..................
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 14:42:03 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Nov 28 2007 - 14:42:03 EST