Re: classic arguments

Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Tue, 09 Dec 1997 09:06:17 -0500 (EST)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Joel Cannon: "Radix Magazine's Phil Johnson interview (fwd)"
Previous message: Chuck Noren: "Re: The lot is cast ..."
Maybe in reply to: Paul Arveson: "classic arguments"
Next in thread: Glenn Morton: "Re: classic arguments"

At 01:31 PM 12/8/97 -0700, Allan Harvey wrote:
>At 02:42 PM 12/8/97 -0500, Moorad wrote:
>
>>Why
>>didn't He [Christ] tell us about our supposed origin via evolution?
>
>I think the words of Augustine are appropriate here:
>"The Spirit of God who spoke through [the biblical writers] did not
>choose to teach about the heavens to men, as it was of no use for
>salvation,"
>
>I think it is reasonable to extrapolate that to the Spirit of God
>incarnated in Christ not choosing to spend his time giving us a
>scientific account of human origins. He had things of more eternal
>significance to tell us.

Explaining origins is not the same as theorizing as we now do. It seems that
two facts are hard to reconcile with evolution and that is the creation in
the image of God and the Genesis account of the creation of man. Christ
could have put down man very easily by saying that man evolved from lower
forms of animals. But He did not. Why?

Moorad

Next message: Joel Cannon: "Radix Magazine's Phil Johnson interview (fwd)"
Previous message: Chuck Noren: "Re: The lot is cast ..."
Maybe in reply to: Paul Arveson: "classic arguments"
Next in thread: Glenn Morton: "Re: classic arguments"