From: Matt Morton (matt.morton@co.yakima.wa.us)
Date: Thu Jan 30 2003 - 13:50:19 EST
(I am trying to send this to be posted..I may be doing it wrong...if so
would
you please forward to the group/moderator id one still exists) :)
Douglas,
I usually sit back and just attempt to digest all the messages that flash
across my screen day in and day out. However, I wanted to voice my agreement
and kudos for your statement. We as scientists often seek infallible proof
and
solid "believable" explanations of events and actions. The bible is not a
scientific document and should not be viewed as such. We cannot place a
human
context on the miraculous...and any attempt to do so can conflict with the
principle of faith. To quote an anonymous author, "For some no explanation
is
needed, for others no explanation will do": and that is central to the faith
argument. We could ask why Aristotle's Dictum about the treatment of
historical
texts is not applied by secular scholars to the Bible in its study and
application. Aristotle basically said that any historical manuscript found
should be trusted unless it can be proven to be false or inaccurate. As far
as
Archaeology and "Science" can determine the Bible is astonishingly more
accurate than most literature of the past centuries (historically,
scientifically, preservationaly, etc, etc). But that is besides the
point...FAITH
is the point.
However, I do believe God makes allowances (as he is more gracious and
compassionate than we can ever conceive) for peoples personal comfort level
and "walk" with him. I DON'T BELIEVE God micromanages salvation, or at least
his word does not seem to indicate so. The most important themes are woven
in a
continuum throughout the text (similar to a holographic transform,) so even
though the message is spread it retains resolution. Modern Worship,
Classical
Worship, Worship with no music at all, just with voices...does any of this
truly
affect salvation? The answer I beleive is a resounding NO!. But it IS
important
to many people here on earth (evidenced by the myriad of worship styles and
church divisions over it.) We should not limit God by OUR human concept of
what
worship, faith, prayer should be. (Keep in mind the "checks" God gives us to
remain faithful to him through the Holy Spirit, etc). Obviously be-heading
chickens in the name of Jesus would not qualify.
The important concepts of salvation, Faith in Christ, bearing Good Fruit,
etc,
etc, are unmistakable and speak to the heart of every Christian...being
fallible
we sometime let our human experience absent the ramifications walking here
and
now in the power of Christ, for we ARE saved...not going to be saved, not
planning on being saved...IT IS FINISHED and we should proceed along those
lines.
The bible says those who have faith in Christ ARE saved
That said I do think the pursuit of Science and discovery in the light of
God
is rational, has merit and is a worthy cause, if not to God than to us his
children.
> Douglas Hayworth wrote:
>
> > I am in total agreement that requiring Jesus' parables to be
> scientifically
> > accurate is absurd.
>
>
> If inerrancy were not such a big deal, people would not even be having
this
> mustard-seed debate, would they? And for those who do not hold Scripture
to
> be inerrant but still respect it, the parable's message for them would
still
> be there in all its force. So to me an insistence on inerrancy seems to
> trade emphasis on enlightenment for endless debates over relatively
trivial
> points. Furthermore, such debates historically have become causes for
> division.
>
> On the plus side, holding to inerrancy at least requires interpreters to
> interpret rather than merely dismiss. I'm thinking of people like the
Jesus
> Seminar scholars, who according to _The Five Gospels_ dismiss much of the
> key material in the Gospels. They thus go way beyond what I would
consider
> acceptable.
>
> If you don't hold to inerrancy, as I really don't, the big question
becomes,
> what are the acceptable limits? How much will I allow someone to dismiss
> without excluding him from my fellowship? The short answer is that,
> fortunately, it's not my job to judge. I think I could have fellowship
with
> anyone who seems to have a basic respect for the authority of God and
> biblical teaching.
>
> I just don't see God as someone who is going to be uptight over whether
you
> immerse or sprinkle, or whether you believe it's the real body and blood
or
> a representation. God has more important things on his mind.
>
> Don
>
> PS - By the way, I'd like to thank those who responded to my request for
> feedback. You've taught me a lot. Among other things, you've taught me
> that I've been paying way too much attention to the atheists and skeptics
> both among my friends and in general, and way too little attention to
people
> like yourselves. But without the Internet I'd never have known you
existed.
> I conclude that OECs who accept something like traditional Christian
> theology need better PR.
>
> You've also taught me that I need to rework some phraseology on my
personal
> website!
>
>
>
>
> >
>
---------------------------------------------
This was sent using Ellensburg Telephone's
On-Line Mail Reader. Courtesy of EllTel
Internet Service (Dialup and High Speed DSL)
EllTel Internet -- RIGHT ON!
http://www.elltel.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jan 30 2003 - 13:52:17 EST