Jim wrote,
<< Now, I will say a few additional words. Since about 1860 it seems that
the
church hasn't known what the heck to do with Gen 1. YEC is wounded. And
then you have "theologists." And then you have OECs/concordists. Paul,
this is also known as the day-age interpretation. You just lost
credibility.
Calling the day-age interpretation a cult makes me wonder if you're not
creating your own imaginary world. >>
You have called YECism cultic. Why? Is it not cultic because it has its own
private interpretations of public facts, interpretations which are contrary
to the consensus of qualified scholars in the various relevant areas of
astronomy, geology, etc? It is of the essence of a cult to have a view which
stands out against the consensus. The day-age interpretation with its various
"explanations" of what God did on the 6 days also has its own private
interpretations of public facts (what it says in Gen 1), which are contrary
to the consensus of qualified OT biblical scholars---including Evangelical OT
scholars. This does not mean you cannot find one or two qualified OT scholars
who espouse day-age interpretations. You can also find one or two qualified
astronomers or geologists who support YECism. But, it is of the essence of a
cult to claim that its interpretations, deviant though they are from the
consensus, are the "true" ones.
It is Christ who put the teachers in the Church. They are not there by
accident. They are there by his appointment. Unless one can make a heavy-duty
case for rejecting the consensus of the teachers Christ has put in the
Church, clinging to a "minority" opinion against that consensus is a
rejection of Christ's authority.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 27 2002 - 10:50:36 EDT