Re: [asa] Two questions...

Douglas Hayworth wrote:
> In fact, I would say that straightforward-YEC is
> theologically a more defensible position than concordism because it
> does not add modern human ideas to the original meaning of scripture.
>
> Doug
>
I think this could be fleshed out quite a bit more. Does YEC really not
add anything new to Scripture? What about the proposition that evidence
seen in nature (indirect, but persistent observation, if you will)
should be discarded if it conflicts with a certain understanding of
Scripture? I think the case could be made that the Biblical writers
from thousands of years ago, and church fathers from hundreds of years
ago all had a much more integrated view of truth both as revealed
through prophets and as seen in the created order. I'm not so sure they
would have accepted as sacred truth something that was already in their
time observed to be false. It may have been as recent as Thomas Huxley
before we saw the advent of widespread mutual distrust between the
keepers of truth in theology and the pursuants of truth in nature. This
widely promoted divorce is, perhaps, the recent aberration that does
violence to our understanding of God and His world. Other concordists
may, of course, be guilty of just the same, but I fail to see how YECs
could be exempted from that. Whatever TEs may be guilty of, they at
least still adhere to the seamless garment (*All* truth is God's truth)
in a way that seems increasingly out of reach for YECs even though they
may still claim the phrase on the surface.

--Merv

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Feb 9 20:16:15 2009