Re: [asa] Two questions...

Just a couple of comments ... you state below that "Scripture is all
we've got." But when those same Scriptures tell us that the heavens
declare the glory of God, or we can read the account of Jesus praying
for all believers and promising to send His Spirit, then it would seem
we aren't left with the written word alone. But if you mean that
Scriptures are to be our starting point -- our guiding light in how to
view creation, that would seem to be a more robust theological truth.

John (in the gospel of that name) quotes Jesus as saying the world hates
him but loves its own. Do you think that the many Biblical references
to the world such as this one are referring to all creation or
specifically to people (as in "the world is going after him." --John
12:19) Some N.T. passages refer to the world in the sense of "all
creation". But the ones that often refer to the tension between Jesus
and the world seem to be speaking more of the people sense of that word
--or so it seems to me to make the most sense. It seems problematic to
me that the heavens should have ceased at some point to declare the
glory of God.

Regarding why YECism troubles so many (at least on this list) is that it
puts an unnecessary stumbling block in front of so many who then
conclude that faith must be (as Mark Twain so aptly put it) 'the art
of believing what you know ain't so.' Stumbling blocks are no new
thing --Jesus even refers to himself as a stumbling block to many. But
in other contexts, there are dire warnings for any who make extra
stumbling blocks. It would be an interesting study to see if these
'stumbling blocks' could be said to have originated in nature (creation
itself apart from human beings or fallen spirits.) You may charge that
'evolution' has been a whopper of a stumbling block for a lot of folks,
and you are probably right. But it wasn't cause for doubt for everyone
then or now (nor the apparent ancient age of the earth). So the
'un-troubled folks', in turn, charge that those who paint science and
faith as exclusive choices are the real manufacturers of the stumbling
blocks whose kids then have crises of faith in college (even without
ever facing any militant atheist professors --- just any professor who
wishes to attempt objectivity of any kind may be unsettling to them.)
So you can see why YECism is disturbing on that level. But I do agree
with you that the 'Kurt Wise' variety that admits to contrary evidence
but then declines to be persuaded by it on Scriptural grounds alone is
probably more commendable than those who try to warp natural
observations into something they are not. But whether this "purer" YEC
is truly being more faithful to Scripture reading is, I think,
questionable. ---or is highly doubted in this listserve, anyway. But
Scripture is the agreed common ground we all have on which to sort it out.

--Merv

wjp wrote:
> Doug:
>
> I think this non-concordist YEC position is closest to mine.
> I have always been uncomfortable with Ross' (RTB) position, sort
> of like a science-groupie. And although most of my
> evangelical friends are close to a concordist YEC position, I have
> always attempted to point out the weakness, and sometimes naivete, of
> some of their arguments. It should be noted, however, that some who
> are very serious about this task are significantly sophisticated
> (e.g., John Baumgardner).
>
> However, my concerns have always been more theological (I'm not wholly
> comfortable with that word), let's say Christological, than with any
> form of concordism.
>
> I am persuaded that Christian faith must always remain in tension with
> the world. Hence, any fully successful concordism might represent an
> attempt to tear down the wall of faith. On the other hand, the occurrence
> of certain historical events are necessary (but not sufficient) for
> Christian faith, as such it is evidential, and subject to attack on those
> grounds. For this reason I am likewise uncomfortable with any form of
> Bultmannian groundless Christianity. Scripture is all we've got.
>
> Like most practitioners of science, I began as a realist. In the twenty or
> so years that I've been studying the philosophy of science, I have increasingly
> adopted the "received" view, the anti-realist or instrumentalist views of
> the vast majority of philosophers, finding Heidegger's the most complex, and
> perhaps compelling.
>
> For this reason my non-concordist YEC position is not troubling so much for me.
> What troubles me is how it troubles others, and how in a day where science has
> replaced philosophy and theology as the arbiters of what is reasonable and true,
> they shall faire.
>
> bill powers
> White, SD
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Feb 10 23:39:49 2009