RE: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Walley [mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 9:35 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu; James Patterson
> Cc: mark.whorton@nasa.gov
> Subject: RE: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs - attn John
>
>
> I won't argue with you about CD anymore. But your acceptance of that makes you an anomaly among most RTB supporters. The difference between you and I and is the inerrancy issue as I just realized and mentioned in my previous email.
>
> Likewise now I am suggesting we have the same difference here. We agree on CD and that God was involved at least indirectly but possibly also directly in the creation of man. Then what do we disgree on? Simply on the fact that you feel that for your interpretation of the Bible to be true, God had to be directly involved, striking the clock every hour instead of just winding it up, and that this is scientifically detectable. So I contend at the heart of the RTB argument, like Bernie suggested the other day, it is a defense of this inerrant interpretation of the Bible, not really CD or fiat creation of man.
>

It does not appear that there is a consensus on the definition of
inerrancy. I imagine that there are many TEs who are members of churches
whose creed affirms inerrancy and who are not uncomfortable about this.
B.B. Warfield, whose name is associated with the doctrine of inerrancy,
apparently saw no conflict between inerrancy and TE, at least according to
quotes I have heard attributed to him.

Gordon Brown (ASA member)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 3 16:31:01 2008