RE: [asa] RE: (fall-away) TE and apologetics

Hi all,

A few replies....

Bill writes:
"Doubt is rational, whereas Faith is supra-rational. By supra-rational I mean that it has a rational component, but it is above rationality, and not dependent upon it, although it can be supported, or, as in the case of Doubt, undermined by it. But, nonetheless, Faith can live and breath in the presence of extreme Doubt and Silence of God....We think that Faith is being Certain, while it is really absolute dependence and weakness."

CHRISTINE: I never thought that faith meant being certain, or that it couldn't co-exist with doubt. Certainly, my crisis of faith helped highlight this and internalize this truth more deeply, but that in and of itself was not a revelation to me. Indeed, my motto during that period was "I believe, help my unbelief!" (Mark 9:24) and "Faith sustains us in the hour that reason tells us that we cannot continue. [reason is] not useless, but it’s also not enough. Faith and reason are the shoes on your feet. You can get farther with both than you can with just one."

Jim writes:
"My guess is that God has no denominational affiliations, and wonders even why we create them and defend them so passionately when we understand so little."

CHRISTINE: True, I don't think God has a "denominational affiliation" per se, but I do think He cares an awful lot about Truth, and that we follow Truth to the best of our understanding. That is the purpose of revelation - to help us understand truth better. Toleration should never be a pretext for relativism.

Bernie writes:
"The reason why people like Collins (and Christine who wrote about her experiences yesterday) go to God is because of their encounter with wonder at creation, and their contemplation about consciousness (the mind).  The mind is so amazing, it has to come from God!  Forget about all theology problems; the mind is the evidence for God."

CHRISTINE: Hmm...you seem to know so much about me and my personal experience that you're now telling me why I "go to God"?? Please, specify in the many posts I have made in the past two years on this listserv, where I said any such thing? At most, I may have said that it was one thing that led me to believe there was a God, or that characteristics such as rationality, emotions, etc. are a reflection of the divine, but I certainly never argued that that was "the" [only] evidence for God. I think this is another example of where you are presuming to speak about things (and people) you do not know.

Bernie writes:
"Here’s the anti-dote: animals have the same mind, but just not to the same degree.  Therefore, you are now stuck with animals in heaven (animals and humans have souls) or else there is no heaven (none have souls).  You can’t divide out humans from animals, because humans are animals, and humans evolved from animals, esp. when understanding/accepting ‘emergence’ of the mind.  There is no one place where there is an animal then human- it is all continuous grey zone."

CHRISTINE: Terrific! I have always argued that animals have a spiritual nature and that in some manner they too will experience resurrection and the redemption of all creation. How exactly does this impact the truth of Christianity? If anything, as George Murphy has pointed out, evolution and common descent only deepen our understanding and appreciation of how Romans 8:21 is connected to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, who being 100% human, also embodied within himself all of the evolutionary history of creation.

Bernie writes:
"When defending doctrines, for example, it seems like the defense is centered in the writings of CS Lewis more than the Bible."

CHRISTINE: Really? Perhaps you should review my answers above?

Bernie writes:
"But why is it that if one thinks there is no immortal soul, all the difficult questions are then answered, regarding eternal life and the soul (there is none)."

CHRISTINE: Probably because if that were the answer, their would be no need for the question, thus eliminating the perceived difficulty. However, the complexity of something has nothing to do with its truth. I get the sense that you are looking for an easy rule to determine truth - a proxy of sorts that's easier to measure. Is it simple or complex? Is it ancient or is it modern? Etc. But you will not find such a proxy in my view. The truth comes to us in many ways, at many times; sometimes it is easy to apprehend, sometimes not. Regardless, truth simply speaks to the ultimate reality of the universe, of ourselves, and of our relationships (whether earthly or divine). That is what you should be focusing on.

In Christ,
Christine

"For we walk by faith, not by sight" ~II Corinthians 5:7

Help save the life of a homeless animal--visit www.azrescue.org to find out how.

Recycling a single aluminum can conserves enough energy to power your TV for 3 hours--Reduce, Reuse, Recycle! Learn more at www.cleanup.org

--- On Mon, 9/21/09, wjp <wjp@swcp.com> wrote:

> From: wjp <wjp@swcp.com>
> Subject: RE: [asa] RE: (fall-away) TE and apologetics
> To: "Christine Smith" <christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com>
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Date: Monday, September 21, 2009, 8:55 PM
> Christine:
>
> This is a beautiful story, but I just don't think faith
> looks this way.
> Perhaps losing one's faith does.
>
> It seems that you, as Bernie, believe that you have "lost
> your faith"
> because of something you thought you understood, you find
> you don't.
> In your case, it was because of the mind/body
> problem.  For Bernie,
> it seems, it was the inability to concord Scripture with
> what he
> believes about the natural world, leading him to doubt all
> of
> Scripture.
>
> It seems to me that you both believe that Doubt and Faith
> are contraries.
> To shamelessly use your story, I think that Faith is more
> like the picture
> you have of consciousness.  In ourselves we can dwell
> in Doubt, but the
> Light that comes from above, nonetheless, reflects
> (creates) Faith.
>
> Doubt is rational, whereas Faith is supra-rational.
> By supra-rational I mean that it has a rational component,
> but it is
> above rationality, and not dependent upon it, although it
> can be
> supported, or, as in the case of Doubt, undermined by it.
> But, nonetheless, Faith can live and breath in the presence
> of
> extreme Doubt and Silence of God.
>
> It is not difficult to find many famous examples of exactly
> what
> I am speaking of, but it also ought to be clear in our own
> lives
> as well.
>
> It is when we demand understanding for Faith (witness the
> motivation
> for multiuniveres), that Faith is diminished and, what is
> worse,
> maintained, or at least thought to be maintained, by our
> own efforts.
> We think that Faith is being Certain, while it is really
> absolute
> dependence and weakness.  It is to be at Rest in utter
> weakness and
> uncertainty because our Trust is not in ourselves, but in
> another.
>
> It is for these reasons that I am still hopeful that Bernie
> is,
> despite his inclinations, still a Christian.
>
> I remember well a story one of my pastors told of himself.
> It is while in Seminary that he was introduced to
> unfamiliar
> ideas that caused him to doubt his faith.  For some
> time he
> went on acting as if it was a phase that would surely
> pass.
> At long last, he felt he could go on no further, took time
> off from school, and went to visit his father.  Upon
> relating
> to his father the gruesome details and the convoluted
> reasons
> for his doubt, he paused to await his father's reply.
> His father did not go into a lengthy defense or each
> point.
> Instead, he had but one short question:
> "Are you in, or are you out?"
> With that, my pastor realized, not only that he was still
> in, but that the walk of Faith was very different from
> what
> he had imagined.
>
> I think the same is true for all of us.
> The very fact that Christine ached in her soul and Bernie,
> at least for now, remains on this list, is evidence of
> that/
>
> bill
>
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:54:26 -0700 (PDT), Christine Smith
> <christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Bernie,
> >
> > You wrote "No soul -> no afterlife -> no
> resurrection -> no work of Christ
> > on the cross."
> >
> > That is precisely the line of logic I followed in my
> crisis of faith two
> > and a half years ago, and it almost made me an
> Atheist. Until, by God's
> > grace, He showed me that I WAS WRONG! Here's my
> story...
> >
> > My faith collapsed on February 3, 2007 because I got
> on to some Atheist
> > websites where they made precisely this type of
> argument. They argued,
> > 'how could their we anything like a soul when things
> like drugs and
> > medications and such could affect everything we might
> call "soulish"?'
> > What about brain damage they said? What's a "soul"
> mean in this context,
> > if there was such a thing? I had never considered
> these questions before,
> > and it rocked my faith to the core - because I had an
> extremely
> > simplistic, strictly dualistic notion of what a "soul"
> is. And I had no
> > idea how anything else besides this understanding
> could fit into any
> > theistic context, let alone Christianity. On February
> 4th, I remember I
> > went to the park to sit by a lake, and literally
> yelled at God,
> > challenging Him to strike me dead if He was real and
> He was listening
> > (Mercifully, He didn't). For two months, I flailed
> about somewhere between
> > Christianity and Atheism, obsessively reading
> >  anything and everything I could about them. I
> couldn't listen to
> > Christian music without crying, I could barely bring
> myself to still
> > attend church or to pray, I questioned what the word
> "soulmates" meant as
> > engaved on my wedding ring. And then, one afternoon on
> the way to a
> > restaurant, I heard a Christian song on the radio:
> "Resurrection", talking
> > about how their heart had grown so lifeless, so cold,
> so dead. The song
> > deeply resonnated with me, and I prayed, once more,
> that God would help me
> > understand, if He even really existed? And that's when
> it happened - the
> > closest thing ever I have felt to pure revelation...
> >
> > Eating at the restaurant, I happened to glance down at
> the table, caught
> > by a glimmer of light. The table was made of polished
> granite, and a
> > mineral flek was reflecting the light.
> Instantaneously, I understood! I
> > went home and wrote it all down, praising God full of
> confidence once
> > again...
> >
> > Our physical brains and bodies are like a mineral.
> Minerals are entirely
> > material, the exact shape and alignment and
> construction of which
> > determines how precisely it interacts with the world,
> and what all of its
> > properties are. It determines how it reflects the
> light, at what angles,
> > and even whether or not it reflects light at all. The
> crystal structure
> > and its properties are 100% correlated - change one
> physical
> > characteristic of the crystal, and you can change
> everything else about
> > it. But the mineral itself, does not give off light,
> is not the source of
> > the light. The light is external. Likewise, our brains
> and our bodies are
> > entirely material, and how it is constructed, what it
> is made of, what we
> > put into it, etc. affects everything we experience,
> how we interact with
> > the world, and how well we physically capable we are
> to engage with all
> > that is around us. But just like a mineral is not the
> source of the light,
> > neither are we. Our consciousness,
> >  our rationality, our emotions, all of  the
> intangible qualities about us
> > (or any animal for that matter) that we call a "soul"
> are not intrinsic to
> > our material bodies. They "emerge" from this physical
> platform only when we
> > are in the presence of "light" - the "light" of God.
> In the presence of the
> > life-giving Holy Spirit, we are brought to life
> through the Spirit's
> > interaction with the material, and what we call a soul
> is the unique
> > reflection of the Spirit through our physical being.
> All people are
> > sustained by the Spirit, and thus when the Spirit
> withdraws, we die. Our
> > "souls" appear to leave our body but they are really
> "in Christ" - that is
> > to say, the unique pattern of that interaction of body
> and Spirit, is kept
> > safe within God Himself. At the resurrection, God will
> transform our
> > physical bodies and the Spirit will raise us to life
> again through that
> > renewed interaction. Thus, there is continuity from
> our current life, yet
> > we will be changed.
> >
> > That is what I believe, and that's how I came through
> my crisis of faith.
> > In so far as I understand, it is consistent with
> science as well as
> > Scripture. And by my husband's account, I am a much
> stronger and more
> > deeply faithful Christian that I was when I started. I
> hope and pray this
> > will be the case for you as you continue on your
> journey.
> >
> > I must be going, but as many here (including myself)
> have referred you to
> > the work of N. T. Wright, I thought I'd point you to
> his website so you
> > can explore it a bit if you're so inclined:  http://www.ntwrightpage.com/.
> >
> > In Christ,
> > Christine
> >
> > "For we walk by faith, not by sight" ~II Corinthians
> 5:7
> >
> > Help save the life of a homeless animal--visit
> www.azrescue.org to find
> > out how.
> >
> > Recycling a single aluminum can conserves enough
> energy to power your TV
> > for 3 hours--Reduce, Reuse, Recycle! Learn more at
> www.cleanup.org
> >
> >
> > --- On Mon, 9/21/09, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> >> Subject: RE: [asa] RE: (fall-away) TE and
> apologetics
> >> To:
> >> Cc: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
> >> Date: Monday, September 21, 2009, 11:48 AM
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I think my
> >> latest awareness came at the
> >> last ASA conference with the discussions about
> the
> >> “mind/body”
> >> problem.  I’ve come to see the
> >> ‘conscience’ as something
> >> complex that emerges from the brain. 
> Christians would
> >> call it a ‘soul’
> >> by I see no reason to attach a spiritual entity
> to
> >> it.  In Christian theology, the
> >> idea of a soul introduces many unanswered
> questions-
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >> What are
> >> toddlers or senile people are
> >> like in heaven (eternally toddler or eternally
> >> senile?).
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >> If souls
> >> given at conception: how are souls
> >> given to identical twins  (one egg/sperm
> splits off
> >> into two kids after some
> >> time) and chimeras (two fertilized eggs grow then
> at some
> >> point combine tomake
> >> one person)  at birth?  Also, Siamese
> >> twins?
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >> Seeing the
> >> conscious as just emergence
> >> (and dissipation in old age) from the brain
> resolves all
> >> these questions.
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >> No soul
> >> -> no afterlife -> no
> >> resurrection -> no work of Christ on the
> >> cross.
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >> ...Bernie
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From:
> >>  asa -owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:
> >>  asa -owner@lists.calvin.edu]
> On Behalf Of  John
> >>  Walley
> >>
> >> Sent: Sunday,
> >> September 20, 2009
> >> 5:39 PM
> >>
> >> To: Mark
> >> Whorton
> >>
> >> Cc: asa
> >>
> >> Subject: Re:
> >> [
> >>  asa ] RE: (fall-away) TE and apologetics
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>   
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Mark,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I contend that
> >> the importance of the theological
> >> component of your RTB to TE journey was directly
> >> proportional to your
> >> investment in it beforehand. It was the same with
> going
> >> from YEC to RTB. The
> >> more you were bought in to all the arguments for
> the age of
> >> the earth, the more
> >> you had to unlearn before you could go forward.
> Inerrancy
> >> is the perfect
> >> theological example. I was never totally sold on
> that for
> >> lots of reasons but
> >> maily because it just never seemed to make any
> sense to me
> >> even though I tried
> >> hard to believe it to be a good Christian but just
> never
> >> really could.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Also, I had only
> >> heard of the YEC party line but was never
> >> really bought into it so it was much easier for me
> to let
> >> it all go with no
> >> serious emotional toll on me. Likewise the same
> with
> >> theology. So I contend
> >> there is an advantage to not making an
> irrevocable
> >> commitment if you can't
> >> really be sure about it. It just never was that
> important
> >> to me or that
> >> essential. This again was providential revelation
> at
> >> least in my case.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Mark
> >> Whorton <mark.whorton@yahoo.com>
> >>
> >> To:
> >> gmurphy10@neo.rr.com;
> John
> >> Burgeson (ASA member) <hossradbourne@gmail.com>;
> John
> >>  Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>;
> "Dehler,
> >> Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> >>
> >> Cc: asa
> >> < asa @calvin.edu>
> >>
> >> Sent: Sunday,
> >> September 20, 2009
> >> 7:51:42 PM
> >>
> >> Subject: Re:
> >> [
> >>  asa ] RE: (fall-away) TE and apologetics
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Pardon me for
> >> inserting myself in mid stream, but I
> >> completely agree with George.  In my
> evolution from
> >> YEC to progressive
> >> creation, I had to make the transition in the
> context of a
> >> biblical
> >> worldview.  I had to work out the relevant
> theological
> >> issues
> >> systematically.  Likewise as I was forced
> into TE by
> >> the strength of the
> >> evidence and the insufferable insistence of John
> >>  Walley ;-), I had to have another paradigm
> evolution based
> >> on
> >> systematic theology.  What I am saying is
> this -- a
> >> Christian must
> >> integrate what they believe about the world with
> what they
> >> believe to be true
> >> about God and His nature.  For me this meant
> that as a
> >> Southern Baptist I
> >> had to jettison the doctrine of inerrancy as
> taught in our
> >> Sunday School
> >> classes in light of a better understanding of what
> is meant
> >> by the authority
> >> and inspiration of Scripture.  Pure and
> simple, that
> >> is theology.  It
> >> did not mean that "theology is incorrect" by any
> >> means.  It
> >> meant that I had to integrate the science and my
> >> understanding (slight but
> >> hopefully growing) understanding of God's
> >> self-revelation into an evolving
> >> systematic theology.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Pardon me for being so focused on my story, 
> but I
> >> think it illustrates
> >> the evolution that must take place in a Christian
> who is
> >> actively seeking to
> >> learn and grow.  Hopefully by God's grace I
> am
> >> making slow progress in
> >> that direction.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Mark  Whorton
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From:
> >> "gmurphy10@neo.rr.com"
> >> <gmurphy10@neo.rr.com>
> >>
> >> To: John
> >> Burgeson (ASA member)
> >> <hossradbourne@gmail.com>;
> John Walley
> >> <john_walley@yahoo.com>;
> "Dehler, Bernie"
> >> <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> >>
> >> Cc: asa
> >> < asa @calvin.edu>;
> >> mark.whorton@yahoo.com
> >>
> >> Sent: Sunday,
> >> September 20, 2009
> >> 12:06:11 AM
> >>
> >> Subject: Re:
> >> [
> >>  asa ] RE: (fall-away) TE and apologetics
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course I meant dismissal of theology in
> general, not of
> >> particular
> >> theologies.  & of course there are bad as
> well as
> >> good
> >> theologies.  But if theology is the practice
> of faith
> >> in search of
> >> understanding - or simply thinking about what one
> believes
> >> & its
> >> implications - then dismissal of theology in
> general is by
> >> definition
> >> anti-intellectual.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Since the Christian message involves claims about
> God's
> >> relationship with the
> >> real world, any theology that conflicts with what
> is known
> >> to be true about the
> >> world is defective, the seriousness of the
> conflict
> >> determining the degree of
> >> defect.  On that count any theology that
> insists that
> >> the world is young
> >> or that evolution hasn't occurred is defective.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> In fact, what you've been doing in trying to make
> sense
> >> of your faith when you
> >> take evolution seriously is precisely theology.
> >> It's important though to
> >> have some guidance in such an enterprise, &
> the
> >> theological tradition can
> >> help with that (though it's not infallible).
> >> & part of the process is
> >> separating the wheat from the chaff.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> C.S. Lewis described a talk on theology he'd given
> to
> >> some men in the RAF,
> >> after which one man stood up and said that all
> that
> >> armchair stuff was all very
> >> well for intellectuals but that he'd known the
> presence
> >> of God when he was out
> >> in the desert at night without any of that formal
> >> theology.  (It's been
> >> awhile since I read this so I may not have the
> details
> >> right but that's the
> >> gist of it.)  Lewis replied that he had no
> doubt that
> >> the man had had such
> >> experiences.  But how far would they take a
> >> person?  It's a bit like
> >> what you need if you're going to sail the Atlantic
> from
> >> Europe to
> >>  America , he
> >> said.  Of course nautical charts wouldn't
> give you
> >> any sense of what it
> >> would be like to be out on the ocean in a
> boat.  But
> >> feelings wouldn't get
> >> you from Portsmouth to
> >>  New York and a nautical chart could.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Shalom,
> >>
> >> George
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---- John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > Any dismissal of theology amounts to an
> >> endorsement of an
> >> anti-intellectual "spirituality."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> George, my only response to this is that from my
> >> laymen's perspective, I look
> >> around and see that the theology that I have been
> exposed
> >> to, at least in the
> >> evangelical church, amounts to primarily YEC and
> maybe PC,
> >> with a sprinkling of
> >> ID thrown in, but all united in bashing evolution
> and
> >> science. I don't have a
> >> lot of confidence in the usefulness of of at least
> that
> >> theology seeing what a
> >> bang up job it did for them and the resulting
> stellar
> >> influence they have on
> >> intellectuals in our culture. I had to divorce
> myself from
> >> all of it to find
> >> truth on my own in TE through my own studies and
> here on
> >> the ASA list, with
> >> little help from theology. If that is
> >> anti-intellectual
> >> "spirituality" then I am guilty as charged.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> But in contrast, my friend Richard Howe and his
> brother,
> >> both PhD seminary
> >> professors and one fluent in Hebrew, both well
> read and
> >> educated in theology
> >> and quite proud of their particular brand of it
> and at the
> >> top of the heap in
> >> evangelicalism, but militant YECs to the core, are
> they the
> >> fruits of studying
> >> theology and the exemplar representatives of it
> you are
> >> referring to? I don't
> >> think so.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't think theology is the secret formula to
> truth
> >> or a pre or post
> >> requisite, I think it is "spiritual" discernment
> >> which is in turn the
> >> result of revelation. That is what Peter had and
> all the
> >> first century
> >> Christians. Anti-intellectual, maybe, but I
> contend it has
> >> served me better
> >> than theology has compared to most of the people
> >> I have met.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----
> >>
> >> From: "gmurphy10@neo.rr.com"
> <gmurphy10@neo.rr.com>
> >>
> >> To: John Burgeson (ASA member) <hossradbourne@gmail.com>;
> >>  John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>;
> >> "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> >>
> >> Cc: asa <asa@calvin.edu>
> >>
> >> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 10:20:59 PM
> >>
> >> Subject: Re: [ asa ] RE: (fall-away)
> >> TE and apologetics
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Granted that our theologies are at best imperfect
> & may
> >> even be
> >> "impertinent."  But theology is essentilally
> >> an attempt to
> >> understand what we believe and its

> implications.  We
> >> are, after all, to
> >> love God with all our mind as well as heart, soul
> &
> >> strength.  Any
> >> dismissal of theology amounts to an endorsement of
> an
> >> anti-intellectual
> >> "spirituality."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Shalom,
> >>
> >> George
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---- John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Wow. I really like the SDG and JofA and
> quotes
> >> below. I agree that is
> >> what our faith has to be based on, our own
> personal
> >> experiential revelation.
> >> Everything else is sinking sand. That is the
> example Jesus
> >> gave us in the NT as
> >> well. When Jesus challenged Peter, he confirmed
> his
> >> response by saying that
> >> "flesh and blood has not revealed this to you".
> >> So I contend it has
> >> to be today as well. This is consistent with
> Burgy's
> >> comment below. I am
> >> intentionally and blissfully ignorant of most of
> the
> >> infinite man-made
> >> theologies referenced below, and I don't think I
> am
> >> missing much. It is much
> >> more important to be like Peter (and JofA) and
> recognize
> >> God's revelation when
> >> you experience it.
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> > I also agree the secret is not to get hung up
> on #5.
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> > John
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> > 
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> > ----- Original Message ----
> >>
> >> > From: John Burgeson (ASA member) <hossradbourne@gmail.com>
> >>
> >> > To: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> >>
> >> > Cc: asa <asa@calvin.edu>
> >>
> >> > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 4:25:41 PM
> >>
> >> > Subject: Re: [ asa ] RE:
> >> (fall-away) TE and apologetics
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> > If I understand you, Bernie, you went through
> these
> >> steps:
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> > 1 The Bible is inerrant.
> >>
> >> > 2  Some of the scientific atatements in
> the Bible
> >> are incorrect.
> >>
> >> > 3 Some of the biblical statements about
> history are
> >> incorrect
> >>
> >> > 4 Therefore the Bible is not inerrant.
> >>
> >> > 5 Therefore the theology (as you understand
> it) in the
> >> Bible must also
> >>
> >> > be incorrect.
> >>
> >> > 6 Therefore it is not
> possible(intellectually) to be a
> >> Christian.
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> > Do I have it about right?
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> > I went through points 1-4 myself, some years
> ago. I
> >> did not hang up on
> >>
> >> > #5 because I had studied enough that I
> recognized that
> >> "theologies"
> >>
> >> > are man-made, not God-made, and that there
> are almost
> >> an infinite
> >>
> >> > number of theologies that one can construct
> from the
> >> Bible.
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> > Theology, to me, is terribly interesting, but
> not
> >> terribly important.
> >>
> >> > One of the most incisive comment I have
> encountered
> >> about this issue
> >>
> >> > was penned by Nathanial Hawthorne. . "So long
> as
> >> an unlettered soul
> >>
> >> > can attain
> >>
> >> > to saving grace there would seem to be no
> deadly error
> >> in holding
> >>
> >> > theological libraries to be accumulations of,
> for the
> >> most part,
> >>
> >> > stupendous impertinence. -- Hawthorne
> >> (Preface to Twice-told Tales)
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> > Another quotation:
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> > I do not place my faith in writings, nor in
> creeds,
> >> nor in the
> >>
> >> > statements of scholars and philosophers, but
> in the
> >> living and present
> >>
> >> > Christ, infinitely beyond any human
> expression. Soli
> >> Deo Gloria
> >>
> >> > (author unknown)
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> > "God" is just our name for the devine
> >> infinite. It does not
> >> define Him.
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> > Joan of Arc, when asked by the bishops "Do
> you
> >> not believe that what
> >>
> >> > you call your voice from God is really
> nothing more
> >> than your
> >>
> >> > imagination?" To this she replied, "Of
> >> course it is my
> >> imagination.
> >>
> >> > How else does God speak to us?"
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> > Cheers
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> > Burgy
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> > --
> >>
> >> > Burgy
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> > www.burgy.50megs.com
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> >> with
> >>
> >> > "unsubscribe asa " (no
> >> quotes) as the body of the message.
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> >     
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> >> with
> >>
> >> > "unsubscribe asa " (no
> >> quotes) as the body of the message.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> >> with
> >>
> >> "unsubscribe asa " (no
> >> quotes) as the body of the message.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>   
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>   
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
> message.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Sep 22 22:10:07 2009