Dick,
In response to E.G.M.'s
"Terrible news, I just found out that Phil Johnson suffered a stroke in
July!!",
you wrote
"Hmmmm ..., there is a God after all."
I find it hard to believe that such a tasteless and uncharitable remark
is conceived, let alone voiced publicly, by one claiming to follow
Christ. How you must hate this man! But what exactly has he done to
merit such abuse?
In your response to Moorad's censure you enlighten us, as follows:
> I think PJ is to Christianity as Pete Rose is to baseball, only
> worse. When we are unable to reach scientists and well-educated
> individuals because they reject the gospel message as unbelievable,
> they spend an eternity in hell. That's HELL, Moorad. PJ's message is
> counterproductive, in my estimation, meaning that on balance we lose
> more than we win. Reduced to simple terms, PJ's message is that if
> there is a God there can be no evolution, or if evolution is true,
> there is no God. (If I misunderstand that then please correct me.)
>
> Contrast that message with Howard Van Till's that there is a God and
> there is evolution. If Howard is wrong, no harm done. If PJ is wrong
> (and he is), he has given all those who know or believe in the science
> of evolution a reason to disbelieve. His message only hardens those
> who might otherwise believe. At the same time, he gives Christians a
> false message which sounds plausible enough, but do we gain any new
> Christians? I think not.
>
> If I thought that my message had the potential of causing any person
> to reject the gospel of Jesus Christ I would rather that God remove me
> from the playing field. Far better my physical life be shortened then
> that anyone should endure an eternity of "weeping," "wailing," and
> "gnashing of teeth" (Matt. 8:12; 13:42; 13:50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30;
> Luke 13:28).
>
> We might disagree as to whether his overall impact is positive or
> negative, but many on this list have voiced strong objections to his
> message, and I agree with them. Would Christianity fare better with
> some if its soldiers off the battle field and in the infirmary? Yes,
> I believe it would.
>
These words betray a shallow understanding of significant features of
God's revelation to man - as we find them clearly presented in the
Scriptures. Thus:
(1) God does the choosing (Jn.17:6 et seq).
(2) All Christians are, by definition, _lovers of truth_ (Jn.18:37).
In other words, what you or I (or PJ, or HVT) do in respect of
evangelism matters not a jot. As responsive servants of the Lord we are
simply called to live the truth in our lives, and to witness to that
truth to those around us. It is the Holy Spirit that does the rest.
In his book "The Wedge of Truth" Johnson has written, "Science should
never fear honest intellectual tools such as precise use of terms,
unbiased investigation of evidence and refusal to accept unjustified
extrapolations. If use of these tools leads to the undermining of a
cherished theory, then that is a gain and not a loss for the advance of
knowledge - even if it leaves scientists bewildered for a time. If no
true answer is available, it is not an advance in knowledge to embrace a
false answer." You perhaps regard this as subversive material!
>From your standpoint Phillip Johnson's chiefest 'sin', apparently, is
his desire to direct the light of reason into the dark recesses of
evolutionary dogma - in other words to question the mindless adherence
of many to a doctrine which - if we are to be strictly honest - has all
the hallmarks of an anti-biblical, anti-Christian, _religion_.
All Christians of goodwill (and can there really be any other variety?!)
will surely pray for this man in his hour of need; that God may grant
his servant a full restoration of his faculties so that he may continue
to pursue his unrelenting demand for truth of all would-be 'priests' of
Science.
Vernon Jenkins
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 29 2001 - 18:30:07 EDT