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

But the Bible teaches that the earth is flat.

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>; "Terry M. Gray "
<grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: A Second J. I. Packer Quotation, this time he's sure.

> Your comparison of the concept of a flat earth, to the
> concept of evolution is not valid.
>
> Anyone can understand what a globe vs. a flat surface is.
> But the idea of variation and natural selection is far
> from intuitive. If he has no knowledge of the area, I
> think it is fair to cut him some slack, even if his
> ignorance on the issue is profound.
>
> Not everyone has knowledge of just about everything that
> you do George. ;)
>
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:11:10 -0400
> "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
> >----- 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 17:28:52 2004