tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7649826198961930411.post6574697882222837025..comments2023-11-02T22:17:59.419+11:00Comments on Sydney Anglican Heretics: In Nature...Erichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04827951993182450846noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7649826198961930411.post-40838689437830966072008-10-06T21:47:00.000+11:002008-10-06T21:47:00.000+11:00One of the accusations against we RBCs (rapid bibl...One of the accusations against we RBCs (rapid biblical creationists) is that our theology of creation comes only from Genesis 1, and we are the poorer for it. An example of this can be found at http://levellers.wordpress.com/2007/11/09/creation-and-evolution-3-creation-psalms/ for instance.<BR/><BR/>I may develop a post on this (my long list of posts to do is getting longer by the month), but the short of it is that all the talk about God's being creation's author but that his 'method' is either not known, not knowable, or not important, fails to deal with the biblical data. The whole idea of 'method' being beside the point is a real furphy, IMO, as it is used to bend the Bible to materialism, not some neutral 'science', at all. The point is, method is God's word; anything else takes us up the path to either gnosticism, or deism; both a path ultimately away from God. Something the recent history of the church attests in spades.<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, there always remains to be done more work in theology of creation, I'd never deny that, I think.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04827951993182450846noreply@blogger.com