Re: [asa] Two questions...

I don't believe He comes solely through the scriptures if that is what your asking. In fact the early church would have been Comfort-less for a lot of the first century if that was the case.

Although I am not a theologian I think it is fairly well established that the Comforter debuted at Pentecost so the answer to your question would be via a reltionship with the Holy Spirit.

Thanks

John

--- On Wed, 2/11/09, Bill Powers <wjp@swcp.com> wrote:

> From: Bill Powers <wjp@swcp.com>
> Subject: Re: [asa] Two questions...
> To: "John Walley" <john_walley@yahoo.com>
> Cc: "Douglas Hayworth" <haythere.doug@gmail.com>, D.F.Siemens@ame8.swcp.com, "Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>, mrb22667@kansas.net, asa@calvin.edu
> Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2009, 4:36 PM
> 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 20:02:12 2009