I'd like to focus on the response to Glenn's message you posted (see below).
In it you accede Glenn's point that scientific observations (evidence) that
conflict with a religious tenant are the winner. You then proceed to the
position that God must lead a person to "recognize the Gospel for what it is
and respond".
Could it be that the real problem here is the unbending urge to interpret
the Bible (or any spiritual writing) in a literal fashion, thus missing what
it *really* is? Glenn's illustration does an excellent job of illuminating
the literalistic position because it focuses on a faith that you and many on
this reflector consider non-scriptural (or at least not the inerrant word of
God). Your intellectual challenge, and the ultimate demise of literalistic
religious groups, is to apply this thought process to your own faith. Holes
in a thought system that are ignored are bound to tear. A better approach,
in my view, is to recognize metaphor and epic tale for what it is, and find
the spiritual meaning within, instead of the endless and pointless attempt
to defend an obviously wrong notion (literalism).
Klay Lund
klayl@ix.netcom.com
----------
From: hamilton
To: Klay; evolution
Subject: Re: Why the Flood was Global
Date: Monday, February 10, 1997 5:59AM
At 7:34 PM 2/6/97, Glenn Morton wrote:
>The problem I have with this approach concerns the question, "Are Christian
>theological views immune from observational data?" The nature of your
>response would seem to suggest that your view does not need to take into
>account the problems I raised. In my opinion this leads to relativism.
>here is why.
>
>Consider the Hindu who believes his religious books that the world is on
the
>back of a turtle swimming in a cosmic sea. You, wishing to evangelize him
>say, "Hey, that is wrong! We have sent spaceships up, photographed the
earth
>and there is no turtle and no sea. Your religion is wrong!"
>
>To which the Buddhist replies, paraphrasing you, " The Bhagavadgita is The
>Book of Truth. No amount of 'Scientific Theory' can ever explain away
>divine fact."
>
>How do you now evangelize him? Evidence is irrelevant to him. When you say,
>"Hey, you can't ignore that evidence that spacecraft provide!" He can say,
>"Yes I can, you do it all the time with that global flood idea!" Stand
off.
This is an excellent statement of the concerns many of us have. However, I
do want to quibble with one point. Yes, of course we want to reconcile our
theology with scientific evidence -- keeping in mind of course that _too_
close a tie between theology and science is not a good idea, because
enither science nor theology is perfect, and science especially changes as
new knowledge emerges. But the more important point is that it takes a
work of the Holy Spirit to regenerate an individual before he can recognize
the Gospel for what it is and respond. (Chapter 10 of the Westminsster
Confession of Faith). All the evidence in the world won't sway an
individual who is naturally disposed to be God's enemy, as all men are
until they are effectually called by Christ. So, while we are presenting
the best evidence we can obtain to our unsaved friends, we had better also
be praying that the Lord will dispose them to be receptive to His offer of
redemption. I believe the prayer is mnore crucial than the evidence.
Bill Hamilton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
William E. Hamilton, Jr, Ph.D. | Staff Research Engineer
Chassis and Vehicle Systems | General Motors R&D Center | Warren, MI
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX) | whamilto@mich.com (home email)