Hi Blake. Thanks for your response. I appreciate the
opportunity to dialogue.
>Jim, you cannot be serious (nor could any conservative
>theologian) in writing that "God wrote the Bible" as
>if He physically put pen to paper. That is really a
>huge definitional leap from the Bible consists of
>God-inspired writings, written by human beings.
Somewhere in the NT (Jesus himself?) it says that the OT was
"written" by the Holy Spirit. This is how prophecy was fulfilled.
>I generally sympathize with your desire to have a
>clear cut, bright line, but your view is really overly
>simplistic in this regard.
Blake, I think that you make an accurate statement about many
"conservative theologians." I try to be self-aware. YECs,
without question, fall into the "conservative" category.
I am guilty by association.
>Bear in mind, I am not saying that any book of the
>Bible is not literally true nor that it is not
>inspired by God (I think I am still staying away from
>heresy so far).
:-)
>You seem insistent that your version has to be the
>true version
No, actually I'm not. Everyone is responsible for his or her
own life. I'm just doing what seems right to me.
>and if someone does not see that, then
>they are somehow defective.
I'm not sure what your definition of "defective" is. Obviously,
the universe is ca 12-15B years old, or it isn't. Some will be right,
and some will be wrong. I guess that wrong would meet your definition
of "defective."
>Likewise, you seem quite
>untroubled that a person would either lose faith or
>not come to Christ because they do not accept your
>interpretation of any particular portion of the Bible.
>This may not be the case, but it appears to be the
>case and this is what I find sad.
The Bible can speak for itself.
>Bear in mind, I am not saying that your conclusions
>are wrong. Nor am I saying that all things in the
>Bible are negotiable. Christianity does clearly make
>some truth claims with a capital T.
It sounds like we're on the same page here.
>I am saying that to expand those truth claims
>unnecessarily and to assert or imply that those
>additional truth claims are the central part of
>Christianity or necessary for Christian faith is a
>problem.
I'll "tailor" this comment to Gen 1. I continue to
see three options for a Christian.
YEC, day-age, or theology-only (yes, I confess to
a bit of "name-calling" when I call this theologism).
I call it theologism because, to me, it is abundantly
clear that Gen 1 is presenting itself as a creation
account. Ideas that it's not (ICBW) creep in when
people start to realize that it is a "backward prophecy."
Some people (ICBW) want no part of this.
Thanks again for your post,
Jim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 30 2002 - 18:24:13 EDT