tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9504248.post7043153042735994923..comments2023-10-29T04:52:56.730-07:00Comments on Salt & Light: Grudem On CreationHoward Fisherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07131678953403450197noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9504248.post-87101453805032354232008-04-17T14:24:00.000-07:002008-04-17T14:24:00.000-07:00I thought I'd make a clarification on Grudem's sta...I thought I'd make a clarification on Grudem's statements on the flood. He believes that the flood is a real historical event. Yet he also ascribes to geological evolution such as Africa separating from south America. If we accept the geologist's premise of long periods of time, how could the flood be above every mountain? <BR/><BR/>In other words, to be consistent, Grudem would have to admit that it takes millions of years to form mountains. There simply is not enough water to cover Mt. Everest at the current rate of growth working backwards 4-5 thousand years ago.<BR/><BR/>Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.Howard Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07131678953403450197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9504248.post-84673749271434524452008-04-09T17:32:00.000-07:002008-04-09T17:32:00.000-07:00Thanks Jason. AiG is a great ministry and resource...Thanks Jason. AiG is a great ministry and resource. I think they might agree with what I wrote, if they could follow my poorly written thought.<BR/><BR/>:-)<BR/><BR/>God BlessHoward Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07131678953403450197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9504248.post-81689930795588837882008-04-09T17:19:00.000-07:002008-04-09T17:19:00.000-07:00If you have never been exposed, might I suggest th...If you have never been exposed, might I suggest the teachings of Ken Ham with Answers in Genesis. I struggled for as long as I can remember with this issue and after the first session of his video series, it was all she wrote. Hope it helps.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9504248.post-46650681704676217432008-04-03T17:14:00.000-07:002008-04-03T17:14:00.000-07:00Allow me to pose the question another way. If Grud...Allow me to pose the question another way. If Grudem is so convinced that the earth has been full of volcanoes and suffering continental drifts for millions of years, then is it not a safe assumption that the world today is pretty the same as it has been for at least a million years? If this is the case, what does the creation need to be liberated from? Why do we need a new heaven and earth? Why does Jesus speak of the regeneration? Regenerating what?<BR/><BR/>This kind of thinking leads to liberation from mankind's pollution or mankind's poor social behavior.Howard Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07131678953403450197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9504248.post-33662945836575921862008-04-03T12:02:00.000-07:002008-04-03T12:02:00.000-07:00Paul, First, I did send you an email in response t...Paul, <BR/><BR/>First, I did send you an email in response to a question you had about resources. It was the only one I had seen.<BR/><BR/>As for this post, there were many problems that I could easily have pointed out and probably needed to in order for this post to really make sense. If I did, though, then it would be a mile long.<BR/><BR/>I should say that Grudem most definitely defends infallibility, yet he walks a fine line when he does so. His chapter is lengthy and in one sense very good at having the willingness to interact with many resources and topics. On the other hand, he doesn't follow through with his own supposed hermeneutic. When someone is inconsistent in their interpretive method, you know immediately that a tradition (scientific or otherwise) has altered the conclusion.<BR/><BR/>For instance, is he really going to believe in continental drift and volcanoes and earth quakes as being "very good"? This obvious point didn't even seem to come across his radar.<BR/><BR/>Simply because Flood geology is rejected by most geologists is ridiculous. I once asked a Christian who taught geology why he believed in the old earth model. His response was simply an assumption. The assumption being that natural processes have always occurred and blah blah blah..... Yet he rejected biological evolution. On what basis did he do so? The contradiction in Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15 is too obvious.<BR/><BR/>Who believes in a real global flood that radically changed the world? Do we really need to? For some reason it is just the unspoken 3rd rail. It is simply assumed.<BR/><BR/>God BlessHoward Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07131678953403450197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9504248.post-88398784843714309922008-04-02T22:08:00.000-07:002008-04-02T22:08:00.000-07:00I was hoping that you would do some more posting a...I was hoping that you would do some more posting about Genesis. I am not sure you ever received my email about some questions some of my friends were asking. At any rate, the subject of biological evolution and geological science has been in the back of my mind for about 6 months. All boiling down to the inerrancy of scripture. I have been reading men like Hitchens (not very scientific, but a good launching point), Daniel Dennet, and Dawkins. Specifically dealing with the area of biological determinism. This all started with a gentleman I have been visiting with at work. All that to say, I hope you do some more posting on this, since the resources seem to be all over the map on this subject. This Grudem post is a good example. I will admit, there are times when Satan is quick to shoot doubts of inerrancy into my mind. However, ALL, and I mean ALL of scripture is inerrant. Grudem would agree I am sure. For some reason we seem to bow to the “scientific” world as evangelicals. Why? I think it is because we (collective evangelicals) do not truly believe every word is inspired. I can personally think of things in Genesis that are harder than the flood to deal with (time, space, light, man, language, animals, plants, etc…) But these and the flood are clearly laid out in scripture and it is without error. And for anyone who thinks I am being naive, the evolutionist and their theories are 100x more naïve.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15659209542816420119noreply@blogger.com