Re: [asa] Two questions...

John:

Through what means does the Comforter come?

bill

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009, John
Walley wrote:

>
> Scripture is not all we got. In fact, if you read and believed the scriptures, you would know that we also have the Comforter, whose job it is to lead us into all truth.
>
> I contend the manifestation of this ministry of the Comforter leading us into truth is to prompt us to use our God given rational faculties to synthesize what He reveals to us from nature, including science.
>
> Thanks
>
> John
>
>
> --- On Tue, 2/10/09, wjp <wjp@swcp.com> wrote:
>
>> From: wjp <wjp@swcp.com>
>> Subject: Re: [asa] Two questions...
>> To: "Douglas Hayworth" <haythere.doug@gmail.com>
>> Cc: D.F.Siemens@ame8.swcp.com, "Jr.""" <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>, mrb22667@kansas.net, asa@calvin.edu
>> Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2009, 9:08 PM
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 22:09:24 -0600, Douglas Hayworth
>> <haythere.doug@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 8:40 PM, D. F. Siemens, Jr.
>> <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> were. They also ignore the fact that the moon is a
>> light as much as the
>>>> sun is, so it cannot merely reflect sunlight. The
>> change in meaning is
>>> so
>>>> familiar that Hayworth does not recognize it as a
>> change.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think you've understood exactly the opposite of
>> what I intended to
>>> convey. You are describing concordist versions of YEC
>> (i.e., examples
>>> of trying to make the biblical descriptions make sense
>>> scientifically). What I said was that straightforward
>> YECs (by which I
>>> meant those unadulterated YECs who simply believe in
>> 6-day creation on
>>> biblical grounds only, and don't care that the
>> scientific evidence
>>> doesn't support it -- perhaps appealing to the
>> appearance of age) are
>>> internally consistent theologically. I realize that
>> the vast majority
>>> of passionate YECs are in fact extremely concordist,
>> too. Sorry if
>>> that distinction was not clear in my original comment.
>> My point was
>>> that it is concordism that is the problem (not
>> specifically whether it
>>> is of an OEC or YEC variety). There is a version of
>> YEC that doesn't
>>> require concordism (i.e., appearance of age YEC), but
>> there is not to
>>> my knowledge any version of OEC that does not depend
>> heavily on
>>> concordism.
>>>
>>> Doug
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
>> with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of
>> the message.
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
>> message.
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Feb 11 16:37:09 2009