Hi Paul,
Before I address the questions that you and others have posed re my
original posting ( "A YEC apologetic"), I would like to extend my
arguments a little further.
Some time ago (but on another list, I believe) I sought to focus
attention on some words of the Lord which appear to be apposite to the
matter in hand. He said, "No man can serve two masters: for either he
will hate the one, and love the other; or he will hold to the one, and
despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon (or, worldly gain)."
(Mt.6:24) Excellent advice, I suggest. Matthew Henry comments: "While
two masters go together, a servant may follow them both; but when they
part, you will see to which he belongs."
It is clear to me that, for the Christian, the vexed question of origins
offers a classic example of this dilemma. On the one hand we have an
input from Science, and another from God's Word - the Bible. The
accounts of how we came to be - and of how long that took - differ to
such an extent that a rapprochement becomes possible only when one of
these 'masters' yields to the other. Science currently accomodates
matters which properly fall under the headings 'metaphysics' and
'opinion'; it is these that have placed it on a collision course with
the Christian Scriptures. We must each choose which, for us, is to be
the dominant master. Once this decision has been taken, it follows that
the believer will view the doctrine of his choice through (so to speak)
clear (or even 'rose-tinted') spectacles, while that of its rival will
be seen (if at all) through smoked glass. The removal of the inevitable
tensions in the mind of the Christian will therefore be achieved by
'filtering out' (and thereby, removing from further consideration) those
intransigent features which stand in the way of compromise.
In respect of myself, as a YEC, I believe I am justified in reading the
whole of the biblical data in a straightforward manner - at the same
time, rejecting the scientific 'evidence' based on 'interpretation' and
'opinion'. For others, the reverse will obtain. The pontifications of
the front-line scientist will normally be received without demur, while
the Scriptures (in respect of origins, at least) merely become the
testimony of a 'god-of-the-gaps'. All that is opposed to their
understanding of what has been scientifically proven is rejected, or
suitably interpreted - and not just the events of Gn.1-11, but also the
NT references which reveal that the Lord's understanding of these
chapters was a literal one!
In view of the warnings concerning the dire outcome of unbelief (to
which I drew attention in my earlier posting), it seems to me that he
who follows such a dangerous course must necessarily consider what
constitutes God's 'bottom line' in this regard. Is it really possible to
believe the Gospel of Christ and, at the same time, reject what he
clearly believed concerning the writings of Moses (Lk.16:29-31). Again,
what of the Apostle Paul's arguments involving a real Adam? Are they to
be passed over as being inconsequential? On the other hand, if the
warnings (eg Heb.3:19, Rev.21:7,8) have already been 'filtered out', we
are, apparently, free to imagine what we will!
Vernon
A response to Paul Seely:
> Your interpretation of 2Tim 3:16 is not a straight forward reading of
> the text. Look for yourself. You are reading into the text an idea
> which is not there. The text says the inspiration of Scripture has a
> purpose, namely, "that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly
> furnished unto all good works." The verse says absolutely nothing
> about science. In fact, scientific knowledge is irrelevant to its
> purpose. People with all sorts of different scientific views have been
> and will continue to be men of God.
I fail to see that the verse need say anything about science; surely, it
is with truth that we are primarily concerned. If the Scriptures are
given 'by inspiration of God' shouldn't that render them inviolable?
While people with all sorts of different views may regard themselves as
'men of God', I believe the acid test lies in their response to the
matters I've outlined above.
> Did the living Word of God while on earth indicate in any way
> whatsoever that people with incorrect views of science could not
> become men of God? Did he ever attempt in any way whatsoever to
> correct the mistaken scientific views of his own day? Did he or any
> apostle ever attempt to use the Scriptures to correct the scientific
> views of their own day? They showed no such interest.
I fail to see what our Lord's views of science have to do with this
exchange. Perhaps we would better consider whether he ever attempted to
correct the 'mistaken' understanding of the Creation Narrative.
> The deep-seated sinfulness of man is seen clearly in the practice of
> YEC's as they know this sad history of the Church and yet insist on
> repeating it---until irrevocable damage has been done to the cause of
> Christ.
If I err in my reading of God's Word, believing what I read, I merely
lay myself open to the charge, "How foolish of you to believe it was
ever intended to be read literally!". On the other hand, if I am
correct, where does that leave the opposition?!
To Christopher Sharp:
I don't think I can add much to what I've already said. However, when
you ask me to 'please elaborate' on my suggestion that 'such structures
('strips of basalt...radiogenic lead in uranium deposits...etc) might
well fulfil some other, necessary, function in the divine scheme of
things', you are clearly asking the impossible. Such possibilities can
only be known to God.
To John Burgeson:
> One must, in the last analysis, choose one's position on what makes
> the most sense. It boggles my mind to think that anyone scientifically
> trained can choose a YEC position.
John, I have attempted to explain not only why the YEC position makes
'the most sense' but, more importantly, why I regard it as the safest.
To be chided as a 'gullible fool' is surely preferable to being informed
that one is unable to enter in because of unbelief (Heb.3:19).
Sincerely,
Vernon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 19:12:12 EST