Re: A Second J. I. Packer Quotation, this time he's sure.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: A Second J. I. Packer Quotation, this time he's sure.

> Ed,
>
> FWIW, Packer is undisputedly one of the most respected of evangelical
> theologians. His views reflect the common evangelical and largely
> traditional orthodox protestant understanding of the Bible. Universalism
> is found in neither of those. For you to react to negatively to him
> reveals that you have fundamental disagreements not just with Packer, but
> with the evangelical Christian perspective.
>
> Of course, you are most welcome to do so, but don't expect that your
> concerns will cause any red flags to jump out in our minds. One of the
> strategies of the skeptic is to set Biblical teachings against each other.
> Evangelicals, on the other hand, believing there is one primary author
> behind all of scripture, seek out an understanding that lets both
> apparently antithetical views stand. While I freely admit that we haven't
> solved all the problems, this enterprise has been around for a long
> time--there are satisfactory answers, for those willing to be satisfied,
> for most of these objections that you raise.
>
> All this being said, what Packer has to say about hell is irrelevant to
> what he has to say about Genesis--unless you don't believe the genetic
> fallacy is really a fallacy. Finally, I think again we're on the edge of
> faith-science concerns here. Let not turn this list into--"here's all of
> Ed's concerns with traditional Christianity".

I do think though that Ed's point with regard to Packer's expression of
uncertainty with regard to evolution is legitimate. It's one thing for a
non-scientist to recognize his or her limitations and not express views
about technical details of theories that are currently debated by experts.
It's quite another thing to be so scientifically illiterate that one doesn't
know basic scientific realities. It would be quite understandable for
Packer to say about Gould & Eldredge's theory of punctuated equilibrium that
"On the theory itself, as a non-scientist, watching from a distance the
disputes of experts, I suspend judgment." There is far less excuse for
making such a statement about evolution itself, the claim that there has
been descent with modification. One suspects that he has been hornswoggled
by anti-evolutionists into thinking that evolution itself really is disputed
by any significant number of experts.

One might as well say "As a non-expert I suspend judgment on whether the
earth is round or flat." You don't have to know about satellite geodesy,
quadrupole moments, &c to know the answer.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Thu Oct 14 12:11:43 2004