RE: Seely's Views 2

Friends,

If we allow for imperfection in God's revelation in Scripture, then we open
a door that I don't think we want to enter. If we cannot trust Scripture as
reliable revelation, we have forfeited the only objective basis for our
understanding of the Creator, ourselves and our relationship to Him.

If we claim that the Bible, or any part of it, is an imperfect revelation
and contains myth, how will we sort out the error from the truth? Do we
require every biblical narrative to be verified empirically? Do apply the
accommodation principle advocated by some in this discussion thread by
assuming all biblical stories that seems improbable (or impossible!) are
drawn from ancient myths and are simply accommodations by God to those
ignorant folk who believed such myths or whose science was incomplete? What
do we do with the miracles of the virgin birth, incarnation, and
resurrection of Jesus Christ? After all, ancient mythology contains
numerous stories of similar occurrences, just as the Babylonian myths
mimicked the creation and flood stories.

And, if we cannot trust that God has perfectly revealed His will to us in
His Word, we have no basis for our own hope. Our faith would therefore be in
vain. Thankfully, our understanding of biblical inspiration assumes the
faithfulness of God to reveal truth. We assume inerrancy in the biblical
text - that everything claimed by Scripture to be true is indeed true!

In Christ,
Bob Barnett, ThM

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Glenn Morton
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 7:05 PM
To: 'D. F. Siemens, Jr.'; jwburgeson@juno.com
Cc: dfwinterstein@msn.com; PASAlist@aol.com; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: Seely's Views 2

> -----Original Message-----
> From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 2:18 PM
> To: jwburgeson@juno.com
> Cc: glennmorton@entouch.net; dfwinterstein@msn.com;

> PASAlist@aol.com; asa@calvin.edu

> There are some OECs who hold that every new entity (species,
> family, or higher taxon) was introduced creatively. The
> evidence of extinctions makes God the author of imperfection.
> So, any way we look at God's handiwork in nature, there is
> imperfection, approximation, things fitted temporarily to
> changing conditions. Why then must God act differently in revelation?
>
> To add a philosophical twist, can the finite be anything but
> imperfect? Dave
>

As I have said repeatedly, the issue is one of how do we know what we
know. If as you say:

> So, any way we look at God's handiwork in nature, there is
> imperfection, approximation, things fitted temporarily to
> changing conditions. Why then must God act differently in revelation?

I would then ask for you to point out precisely which parts of
revelation are imperfect so that I may avoid falling into error. My
sneaking suspicion is that the parts you find imperfect might be
different from my list. In which case, what test do we use to confirm
which imperfections are really imperfections?
Received on Tue Aug 31 20:28:58 2004