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

>>> On 11/28/2007 at 12:09 PM, in message
<20071128181357.DB26D710F92@gray.dordt.edu>, "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:

I would start by telling him what you just told us: that you like and respect him and see him as a devout Christian. I would also tell him that you too are a devout Christian and (II assume is true) have a high view of Scripture). Because of your respect for him and his leadership you will not use his Sunday School class as a forum to spread your ideas. Maybe also that you would love to sit down and talk with him about your position so he can understand that not everyone who is [whatever you are] is someone on the slippery slope to denying Scripture.

James Mahaffy

>
>
>
> 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
>
> <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/
>
> ----- 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 <mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com>
> Walley
>
> 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 16:58:35 2007