Vol. II • 1979 http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v01n3p01.htm
EDITORIAL
EDITORIAL
Dear Readers,
As we begin this new year it is a good time to take stock of the many ways in which God has blessed the ministry of the Creation Social Science and Humanities Society. We incorporated a little over a year and a half ago in July, 1977. As we now prepare this third issue of the CSSHS Quarterly we find that we have grown from our original membership of three to a present total of 146.
Twenty-one of these are from outside the USA. The membership breakdown by countries is as follows: we have one member each from Austria, Brazil, Indonesia, Nigeria and Norway; two members from the Netherlands; three members each from Australia and England; eight members from Canada and 125 members from the USA. In addition we have 23 nonmember subscriptions to the Quarterly.
Since the last issue we have received a couple of letters in regards to the book review by John Robbins. In very simple terms this is how I understand the point of Robbins' article. As Christians we walk by faith (Romans 1:17). However, we do not believe because we are smarter or better than non-believers. Rather, our faith is itself a result of God's action (Ephesians 2:8). Our certainty and confidence in the truth whether we speak of spiritual truth, philosophical truth or scientific truth is fundamentally rooted in Christ Himself. Christ created me and the universe I dwell in. I trust that He made my senses and rational mind in such a way as to be in harmony with His creation. I trust my senses because I trust in Him. I see the table in front of me. I touch it. I knock on it. Of course it is really there. I am very bold about it as well I should be. My confidence and boldness follows logically from my faith and trust in the Christ Who made me, my eyes, my mind and the table.
But what about the man who denies God? What about the learned man who scoffs at faith and tries to throw it out once and for all? Can he be certain that the table is really there? If he is logically consistent with the implications of his having rejected God, I think not. As a first step he is logically pushed toward the position that everything is uncertain. If he were to continue the path of logical implication, he would arrive at the realization that he cannot even be certain about uncertainty. Finally, if he were completely consistent with his presuppositions, he would logically have to be open to the Gospel of our certainty in Christ. This, of course, because he cannot be certain my certainty is wrong.
To conclude we can say that the logically consistent Christian should project certainty and the logical consistent unbeliever should project uncertainty. In this sense I agree wholeheartedly with the letter from brother Elmendorf. He is speaking with the boldness that he ought to speak with: a bold faith in scientific truth that logically follows from his faith in Him Who is the truth. If' on the other hand, a nonbeliever were to speak with such certainty about anything he thinks science has proven, no matter how basic, I would say, "he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know." (I Cor. 8:2)
Paul D. Ackerman
Editor
|
|
 |
|