Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Where does compromise begin?

Expand Messages
  • richard williams <thinkcreation2002@yaho
    ... snip snip snip. ... snip snip snip it s a good article. well reasoned. timely. certainly an article that any conservative christian would assent to.
    Message 1 of 3 , Feb 2 9:29 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com, "Kurt Streutker
      <kurt_streutker@y...>" <kurt_streutker@y...> wrote:
      > Where does compromise begin?
      >
      > by Charles Taylor, M.A., Ph.D., PGCE, LRAM, FIL, Cert. Theol.
      >
      snip snip snip.
      > does, interpret it. That's sometimes the trouble. We're so busy
      > looking at the various spiritual applications that we overlook the
      > historical aspects. Christianity is unique in being a historical
      > faith, and if we downplay the history, we end up being just
      > another religious philosophy.
      >
      snip snip snip


      it's a good article. well reasoned. timely. certainly an article that
      any conservative christian would assent to.

      scripture is written on various interpretive levels.
      the historical, as we envision the bottom level, anchors it into this
      world. jesus was a real man, issues that took the church 400 years to
      hammer out. spilling not just ink but real red blood in doing so.

      the underlying message of the article, and in case i'd miss it,
      entitled where does compromise begin? the implication is that an
      interpretive scheme which decreases the percentage of historical
      interpretation is compromise and will end up like bultmann, a liberal.

      --------
      our problem is that we hold to several doctrines that are all
      important. and not equally important. i believe i have then in
      prioritized order.

      first is the reliability of scripture.
      second is principles like try to interpret scripture first with
      literal man-in-the-street commonsense ideas as applied to those it was
      first addressed to.
      third but realize that scripture is literally a letter addressed to
      the church in all the ages, until jesus returns.
      fourth a closed canon
      fifth an evolving historical theology which changes and adapts the
      message of god to different cultures and historical epoches. the bible
      may be cultural but the message it contains is timeless and cultureless.

      the author of the message takes two books, daniel and jonah of
      examples of how people have demythologized the verses. dehistorized.
      in response to as he puts it, the desire to eliminate the miracles.

      -----
      in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth.

      to believe that god created it in one 6 day 24 hour creation week is
      not any more miraculous then to believe that god used evolution to do
      it. i dont compromise the gospel to believe that the days are not 24
      hours long.

      my desire is to open the book of nature and to understand what god has
      written there. if anything i hold to a higher view of history than
      does a YEC. for i believe the fossils, the radioactive data, the
      things god has written in the very nature of the universe. the history
      is real. i dont hypothezie light created as if the stars where very
      far away, when in fact they are 6K years old.. i dont call scientists
      grossly mistaken for seeing evidence of a very ancient earth. i take
      history seriously.

      i take sides with science against an overly literal, unwarrantly
      historicized genesis 1 and 2, whose proponets are polarizing the
      church into warring camps when the only distinction ought to be the
      resurrection of jesus and its significance(to know nothing but jesus
      and him crucified). i take sides with science, not to diminish the
      meaning of scripture but to put it into the framework that god intends
      for us to understand it.

      the universe exists. it is god's creation. if something is clearly
      understood from a scientific viewpoint that appears to be in conflict
      with scripture then i first reevaluate the meaning of the science, but
      if it appears from a general christian preceptive to be valid. and if
      i can see christians with a high view of scripture believing those
      things from science. then i need to re evaluate my interpretation of
      scripture.

      we are heirs to a different way of looking at the world than were the
      ancient hebrews who first heard the words of genesis. a big part of
      that world is science. it is something that i will take seriously, i
      will be careful to do my homework in the field, i will believe god
      when he says that he created the heavens and the earth. not a deceiver
      who is casting a great spell on the scientific world so that they see
      what is not there. especially since that scientific world contains
      many believers who see genesis as supportive of a very old earth.


      so yes, i believe as the author of your quote does, that history is
      important. the history as discovered by biology and geology and
      astronomy. this side is better use of my reason that to side with the
      YEC and hold to a literal view of an ancient world where myth and
      stories where the primary means of explanation. god accommodated
      himself to our frailities, he spoke our languages, he took upon
      himself the form of a man. the world of man, that god spoke genesis to
      is a different world from the one we inhabit. we cloth our arguments
      in terms that the hebrews never would have, dna ribosomes, stellar
      clusters ... yet the meaning and significance is not changed.

      in the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth.


      richard williams
    • Kurt Streutker <kurt_streutker@yahoo.com>
      RW: it s a good article. well reasoned. timely. certainly an article that any conservative christian would assent to. But evidently you do not, since you
      Message 2 of 3 , Feb 3 5:00 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        RW: "it's a good article. well reasoned. timely. certainly an article
        that any conservative christian would assent to."

        But evidently you do not, since you deny that the rot starts in the
        first book in the Bible, just as a fish rots from the head down.

        RW: "scripture is written on various interpretive levels."

        No, that's an idea of Origen (who was a "young-earther" despite
        Ross's lies). There are distinctive literary genres in Scripture,
        but each portion has only one of them. E.g. Genesis 1-11 is written
        in the same style as Genesis 12-50, which is clearly historical
        narrative. The Psalms are written in poetic style. It is an error
        to read history as poetry or vice versa.

        RW: "the historical, as we envision the bottom level, anchors it into
        this world. jesus was a real man, issues that took the church 400
        years to hammer out. spilling not just ink but real red blood in
        doing so."

        Did they really? Or is this more historical revisionism from the pen
        of RW? Very few doubted that Jesus was a real man, apart from the
        Docetic heretics. More doubted his divinity, but that heresy was
        defeated. But Scripture was primary in these debates.

        RW:
        "the underlying message of the article, and in case i'd miss it,
        entitled where does compromise begin? the implication is that an
        interpretive scheme which decreases the percentage of historical
        interpretation is compromise and will end up like bultmann, a
        liberal."

        And this has happened over and over again! Bultmann was just more
        consistent than the conservative compromisers.


        RW: "our problem is that we hold to several doctrines that are all
        important. and not equally important. i believe i have then in
        prioritized order.

        "first is the reliability of scripture.
        second is principles like try to interpret scripture first with
        literal man-in-the-street commonsense ideas as applied to those it
        was first addressed to.
        third but realize that scripture is literally a letter addressed to
        the church in all the ages, until jesus returns.
        fourth a closed canon
        fifth an evolving historical theology which changes and adapts the
        message of god to different cultures and historical epoches. the
        bible may be cultural but the message it contains is timeless and
        cultureless."

        All but the fifth are OK. The fifth is very dangerous. Rather, the
        unchanging message of God should change and adapt society to fit.
        Despite RW's earlier historical revisionism, it was when the Church
        tried to read current fashions into Scripture that it went astray,
        e.g. Ptolemaic astronomy, racism and feminism. It was the
        straightforward reading of Scripture that was a key in societal
        advances, like abolition of slavery.

        RW: "in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth.

        to believe that god created it in one 6 day 24 hour creation week is
        not any more miraculous then to believe that god used evolution to do
        it."

        I'm not interested in what's more "miraculous" but in what God said
        He did!

        RW: "i dont compromise the gospel to believe that the days are not 24
        hours long."

        You do, because by believing in millions of years of before
        man, you destroy the link between Adam who brought physical
        because of his sin, and the Last Adam who brought resurrection
        fromthe and forgiveness for sin (1 Cor. 15).

        RW: "my desire is to open the book of nature and to understand what
        god has written there."

        How sweet. But there is no PROPOSITIONAL REVELATION in nature, and
        neither can it tell you how to be saved. That's why it's utter folly
        to try to understand the history of the world by ignoring the special
        propositional revelation of Scripture.

        RW: "if anything i hold to a higher view of history than does a YEC."

        No you don't, because history by definition is what is written. You
        ignore what is written in favor of the faulty interpretations of data
        by scientists who also ignore the eye-witness history in the Bible.

        RW: "for i believe the fossils, the radioactive data, the
        things god has written in the very nature of the universe. the
        history is real."

        Yes it is, and the Bible explains all these. Most fossils show
        evidence of catastrophic burial (you couldn't get a fossil otherwise
        because it would rot and be destroyed by scavengers), which makes
        perfect sense interpreted in the light of the Biblical teaching of a
        global Flood.

        A Biblical view also makes sense of the isotope ratios that
        scientists measure. Without it, one would interpret the ratios as
        age, but when they are tested on rocks of known age, they often
        fail. But an understanding of Biblical history makes one more likely
        to think of geochemical processes as well as accelerated radiodecay
        that explain these chemical ratios.

        RW: "i dont hypothezie light created as if the stars where very
        far away, when in fact they are 6K years old."

        Neither do I! That Woollet person grossly misrepresented current
        thinking on this (and just about everything else). I've already
        explained this to him, and he just had a hissy fit.

        RW: "i dont call scientists grossly mistaken for seeing evidence of a
        very ancient earth."

        I don't fall for such argumentum ad verecundiam "(appeal to
        authority).

        RW: "i take history seriously."

        What has history to do with operational science?

        RW: "i take sides with science against an overly literal, unwarrantly
        historicized genesis 1 and 2, ..."

        Let's reword that to say what you REALLY mean: You take sides with a
        uniformitarian paradigm in which data are interpreted against a
        Genesis read in the way it was intended by its grammar -- as
        historical narrative, as the historic Christian Church has understood
        it.

        RW: "whose proponets are polarizing the church into warring camps"

        Who's doing the polarizing?? Let's read Paul's opinion in Romans
        16:17:

        `Now I beseech you, brethren, mark those who cause divisions and
        offenses … and avoid them,'. But then Paul identifies the division-
        causers as those who bring teachings `contrary to the doctrine which
        you have learned'. It is the OECs and TEs who are bringing in new
        doctrines foreign to the historic Christian church, so they are the
        divisive ones!

        RW: "when the only distinction ought to be the resurrection of jesus
        and its significance(to know nothing but jesus and him crucified)."

        Yeah, exactly -- And Paul whom you quote made it clear that its
        significance is explained in 1 Cor. 15, and it's to counteract the
        physical that came through Adam's sin!!

        RW: "i take sides with science, not to diminish the meaning of
        scripture but to put it into the framework that god intends for us to
        understand it."

        So God left the Church in the dark for 1800 years, and it took Christ-
        haters like Hutton, Lyell, Darwin and Huxley to explain it properly?

        RW: "the universe exists. it is god's creation. if something is
        clearly understood from a scientific viewpoint that appears to be in
        conflict with scripture then i first reevaluate the meaning of the
        science, but if it appears from a general christian preceptive to be
        valid. and if i can see christians with a high view of scripture
        believing those things from science. then i need to re evaluate my
        interpretation of scripture."

        What you really mean is, believe something diametrically opposed to
        what Scripture teaches. It would be harder to write a document more
        opposed to modern evolution thatn Genesis 1, in terms of time-scale,
        process and order of events.

        RW: "we are heirs to a different way of looking at the world than
        were the ancient hebrews who first heard the words of genesis."

        Here we go again with RW's chronological snobbery aka "ancient people
        were stupid".

        RW: "a big part of that world is science. it is something that i will
        take seriously, ...."

        So do I. But I also take seriously the distinction between
        operational and origins science, and note the role of
        presuppositions.

        RW: "i will be careful to do my homework in the field, i will believe
        god when he says that he created the heavens and the earth."

        But not when He gives information about the time frame and sequence,
        eh? And you wonder why atheists don't believe what you do? Why
        should they, when you clearly don't believe anything else in the same
        book which provides that information!

        RW: "not a deceiver who is casting a great spell on the scientific
        world so that they see what is not there."

        No, you'd rather believe in a god who cast a great spell on the
        ancient Hebrews and the historic Christian church by deceiving them
        with PROPOSITIONAL REVELATION, in the genre of HISTORICAL NARRATIVE,
        that He created the world in six normal-length days about 6000 years
        ago, and that man and animals were created separately. And that he
        judged the world by a global Flood.

        "especially since that scientific world contains many believers who
        see genesis as supportive of a very old earth."

        So what? If these "believers" deny God's clear teaching of a global
        Flood, then they are INTERPRETING the data wrongly. Just like Lucy
        ignored Manuel's letter in plain language in favour of a "scientific"
        text but with wrong ASSUMPTIONS about the past.

        RW:
        "so yes, i believe as the author of your quote does, that history is
        important. the history as discovered by biology and geology and
        astronomy."

        But evidently not the REVEALED history by the One who was there!

        RW: "this side is better use of my reason that to side with the
        YEC and hold to a literal view of an ancient world where myth and
        stories where the primary means of explanation."

        Right, so Genesis is a myth now, is it? No, it is clearly historical
        narrative, which was ALSO very important to the ancients.

        RW: "god accommodated himself to our frailities, ..."

        As I've pointed out, there is a huge difference between adaptation to
        human finitude and accommodation to human error: the former does not
        entail the latter. A mother might tell her four-year-old `you grew
        inside my tummy' — this is not false, but language simplified to the
        child's level. Conversely, `the stork brought you' is an outright
        error. Similarly, God, the author of truth, used some simplified
        descriptions (e.g. using the earth as a reference frame, as modern
        scientists do today, round numbers in the dimensions of a brass sea)
        and anthropomorphisms, but never error. It would be an error, not a
        simplification, to say that Adam was made from dust if in reality an
        ape-like creature begat him, or that God created in six numbered days
        with mornings and evenings when He created over billions of years.
        I've already pointed out that there were plenty of words that the
        Hebrews could have understood if that's what was meant.

        RW: "he spoke our languages, he took upon himself the form of a man.
        the world of man, that god spoke genesis to is a different world from
        the one we inhabit. we cloth our arguments in terms that the hebrews
        never would have, dna ribosomes, stellar clusters ... yet the meaning
        and significance is not changed."

        But the Hebrews knew the difference between ages and days, and knew
        what begat meant!

        RW: "in the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth."

        Don't stop there! Otherwise why should anyone take you seriously if
        you believe only the first line of a book but nothing else?



        --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com, "richard williams
        <thinkcreation2002@y...>" <thinkcreation2002@y...> wrote:
        > --- In RTB_Discussion_Group@yahoogroups.com, "Kurt Streutker
        > <kurt_streutker@y...>" <kurt_streutker@y...> wrote:
        > > Where does compromise begin?
        > >
        > > by Charles Taylor, M.A., Ph.D., PGCE, LRAM, FIL, Cert. Theol.
        > >
        > snip snip snip.
        > > does, interpret it. That's sometimes the trouble. We're so busy
        > > looking at the various spiritual applications that we overlook
        the
        > > historical aspects. Christianity is unique in being a historical
        > > faith, and if we downplay the history, we end up being just
        > > another religious philosophy.
        > >
        > snip snip snip
        >
        >
        > it's a good article. well reasoned. timely. certainly an article
        that
        > any conservative christian would assent to.
        >
        > scripture is written on various interpretive levels.
        > the historical, as we envision the bottom level, anchors it into
        this
        > world. jesus was a real man, issues that took the church 400 years
        to
        > hammer out. spilling not just ink but real red blood in doing so.
        >
        > the underlying message of the article, and in case i'd miss it,
        > entitled where does compromise begin? the implication is that an
        > interpretive scheme which decreases the percentage of historical
        > interpretation is compromise and will end up like bultmann, a
        liberal.
        >
        > --------
        > our problem is that we hold to several doctrines that are all
        > important. and not equally important. i believe i have then in
        > prioritized order.
        >
        > first is the reliability of scripture.
        > second is principles like try to interpret scripture first with
        > literal man-in-the-street commonsense ideas as applied to those it
        was
        > first addressed to.
        > third but realize that scripture is literally a letter addressed to
        > the church in all the ages, until jesus returns.
        > fourth a closed canon
        > fifth an evolving historical theology which changes and adapts the
        > message of god to different cultures and historical epoches. the
        bible
        > may be cultural but the message it contains is timeless and
        cultureless.
        >
        > the author of the message takes two books, daniel and jonah of
        > examples of how people have demythologized the verses. dehistorized.
        > in response to as he puts it, the desire to eliminate the miracles.
        >
        > -----
        > in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth.
        >
        > to believe that god created it in one 6 day 24 hour creation week is
        > not any more miraculous then to believe that god used evolution to
        do
        > it. i dont compromise the gospel to believe that the days are not 24
        > hours long.
        >
        > my desire is to open the book of nature and to understand what god
        has
        > written there. if anything i hold to a higher view of history than
        > does a YEC. for i believe the fossils, the radioactive data, the
        > things god has written in the very nature of the universe. the
        history
        > is real. i dont hypothezie light created as if the stars where very
        > far away, when in fact they are 6K years old.. i dont call
        scientists
        > grossly mistaken for seeing evidence of a very ancient earth. i take
        > history seriously.
        >
        > i take sides with science against an overly literal, unwarrantly
        > historicized genesis 1 and 2, whose proponets are polarizing the
        > church into warring camps when the only distinction ought to be the
        > resurrection of jesus and its significance(to know nothing but jesus
        > and him crucified). i take sides with science, not to diminish the
        > meaning of scripture but to put it into the framework that god
        intends
        > for us to understand it.
        >
        > the universe exists. it is god's creation. if something is clearly
        > understood from a scientific viewpoint that appears to be in
        conflict
        > with scripture then i first reevaluate the meaning of the science,
        but
        > if it appears from a general christian preceptive to be valid. and
        if
        > i can see christians with a high view of scripture believing those
        > things from science. then i need to re evaluate my interpretation of
        > scripture.
        >
        > we are heirs to a different way of looking at the world than were
        the
        > ancient hebrews who first heard the words of genesis. a big part of
        > that world is science. it is something that i will take seriously, i
        > will be careful to do my homework in the field, i will believe god
        > when he says that he created the heavens and the earth. not a
        deceiver
        > who is casting a great spell on the scientific world so that they
        see
        > what is not there. especially since that scientific world contains
        > many believers who see genesis as supportive of a very old earth.
        >
        >
        > so yes, i believe as the author of your quote does, that history is
        > important. the history as discovered by biology and geology and
        > astronomy. this side is better use of my reason that to side with
        the
        > YEC and hold to a literal view of an ancient world where myth and
        > stories where the primary means of explanation. god accommodated
        > himself to our frailities, he spoke our languages, he took upon
        > himself the form of a man. the world of man, that god spoke genesis
        to
        > is a different world from the one we inhabit. we cloth our arguments
        > in terms that the hebrews never would have, dna ribosomes, stellar
        > clusters ... yet the meaning and significance is not changed.
        >
        > in the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth.
        >
        >
        > richard williams
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.