Don Calbreath writes
> Why not formulate an even newer theology that "...takes in to account gradual
> creation..." and also denies the possibility of miracles, "... but still upholds
> the rest of evangelical Christianity." Or all of the above, plus denies the
> direct action of God in our lives ... Or ... The question is: where do you
> stop? At what point does your position cease to be that of an evangelical
> Christian? Once again, I think we are placing our desire for "scientific
> respectability" in first place - I'm not convinced that this is neccessarily a
> good idea.
Nor am I. In trying to find common ground between theology and science it's OK IMO to consider adjustments in theology that don't strike at fundamental Christian doctrines. One example might be to accept the view that the earth is 4 billion years old. But to change the doctrine of the fall or of the incarnation or the resurrection is unnecessary and dangerous. Another reason to go cautiously of course is that science changes as more is learned. Some questions to ask in trying to reach common ground with the sciences might include.
1. Does accepting this conclusion of science require a fundamental change in Christian doctrine? If so, we can't go there.
2. Does this scientific insight provide a new insight into Christian doctrine?
3. Is this conclusion controversial in the science community? If so it's good to wait a while and see what develops.
William E. (Bill) Hamilton, Ph.D. Member ASA
248.821.8156 (mobile)
"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31
http://www.bricolagia.blogspot.com/
Want to help a child?: http://www.compassion.com/sponsor/index.asp?referer=85198
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jun 9 17:58:55 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 09 2008 - 17:58:55 EDT