"Stephen, I will admit to being very discouraged at this moment. The
discouragment comes from my general observation that we believers would
rather postulate that the entire body of observational evidence is wrong
than question our interpretation of the Bible. And the more liberal branch
of Christianity would rather believe that the Scripture is unhistorical or
untrue whenever the observational data goes against an interpretation of
scripture. Both approaches to this issue makes the Bible questionable as
far as its ability to relate truth. I will only applaud when conservative
Christians cease running from observation, and liberal christians cease
surrendering historicity in what should be the word of God."
-------------------- End Original Message --------------------
Glenn:
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who divide everything
into two, and those who do not. ;-)
This you do with regard to theology. But you've left out a position that
treats the Word of God for what it is (some would argue). In fact, it could
be said that you are "running away" from the observational data of
Scripture!
No one considers Bernard Ramm or Donald Bloesch liberal, yet both would
tell say conservatives must consider a deeper view, one that deals with the
text as it is, not merely as they want it to be. Ramm, for example, calls
it a mistake to believe that in Gen. 1-3 "God is acting as the reporter, as
he reveals the events to Moses who in turn writes them down." He's an
evangelical. So at least you must acknowledge more than the two extremes
you posit.
Jim