Re: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments (was: RE: (fall-away) TE and apologetics)

Dear Bernie,
Want a "short" and "pithy answer"?
Re-read my post. I gave you the
answer.
Regards,
Denis

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 11:22 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments (was: RE:
(fall-away) TE and apologetics)

> Hi Denis- just a short comment and note before I reply to the rest. A
> short answer would also be appreciated.
>
> First, as I see it, in your book "Evolutionary Creationism," you say
> concordism should be evaluated on three levels: science, history, and
> theology. You then use and define terms, with examples, for 'ancient
> science' and 'ancient history.' You don't do that for 'theology.' Why is
> that? Why not also use the term 'ancient theology' and use and define it
> like the other two?
>
> If you ask "what would be an example of 'ancient theology'" I would say
> one example is the notion that death entered the world through the sin of
> Adam (we both reject a literal Adam; and you laid out the case that the
> Apostle Paul specifically taught that physical death entered by way of
> Adam).
>
> My point: you imply 'ancient theology' (whether intentional or not) but
> don't explicitly state it.
>
> Pithy answers appreciated, pal ;-)
>
> And just to be clear on the big picture, I think your two books are the
> only ones that I can think of to recommend to other Christians who want to
> integrate evolution into theology. They are the best I've seen.
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Denis O. Lamoureux [mailto:dlamoure@ualberta.ca]
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 10:01 AM
> To: Dehler, Bernie
> Cc: asa
> Subject: Re: [asa] RE: (fall-away) TE and apologetics
>
> Dear Bernie,
>
> A few folks on the listserv have contacted me to share of your recent
> shift
> away from Christianity. Since my name and work have come up in your
> posts,
> they thought that I should comment. After reading some of your arguments,
> I
> am sorry to say that you misrepresent my views, and quite badly. Of
> course,
> it runs through my mind whether you actually read my material with any
> care.
> Let me give you a couple examples.
>
>
>
> On Fri Sep 18 2009, Bernie writes:
>
> "I can explain how it ended my faith in Christ. Once accepting evolution,
> I
> had to figure out how to integrate it into theology. Lamoureux helped
> here.
> There is theology, science, and history in the Bible; and the last two are
> ancient and they are wrong. But now that I was on that road, I could go
> further, and say "Ah ha- it is the same case for theology- there is also
> an
> 'ancient theology' in the Bible that is also wrong." Of course, no
> theologian will use the term 'ancient theology' even though they believe
> it,
> because it will make them a heretic. So what is "ancient theology?" For
> one,
> the sin of Adam brought death into the world. Ancient, and wrong
> (according
> to TE's and YEC's). (Your quoted paragraph above mentions 'ancient' and
> wrong ideas related to theology, only they aren't labeled as such.)"
>
>
>
> Bernie, you've completely missed the entire point of my book, and you've
> committed the error that I attack throughout the book-CONFLATION.
>
>
>
> In the example you cite, you've conflated:
>
> (1) the ancient science (the de novo of Adam, which is an ancient
> phenomenological perspective on how life arose) and
>
> (2) the Divine Theology (the reality of human sin and the fact that sin
> entered the world because of humans).
>
>
>
> I give scores of examples of the ancient science being used as an
> incidental
> vessel to deliver the Holy Spirit inspired Messages of Faith (ie, the
> Message-Incident Principle which I repeat ad nauseam), but somehow you are
> oblivious to this categorical distinction. In this example, my conclusion
> is
> that "sin entered the world, but not with Adam" (p. 329).
>
>
>
> Your comment regarding the integrity of theologians ("even though they
> believe it") is shameful and crosses the line. And it simply is not true.
> I
> believe the theology in Scripture is inerrant/infallible, and I use these
> terms in my book Evolutionary Creation (2008) 153 times in 386 pages-about
> once every 2.5 pages.
>
>
>
> Another of your misrepresentations and CONFLATIONS regards the history in
> Scripture. You write: "There is theology, science, and history in the
> Bible;
> and the last two are ancient and they are wrong." You fail to distinguish
> the ancient history in Gen 1-11 from the historical statements in the rest
> of the Bible. Remember, the focus of my book is on Gen 1-11. However, I
> did
> make a critical qualification right at the beginning of the first chapter
> where I deal with Gen 1-11. In the second paragraph of this chapter I made
> my views very clear regarding the history in Scripture:
>
>
>
> "It has long been acknowledged that Scripture describes actual historical
>
> events. The scientific discipline of biblical archaeology explores
>
> the history of ancient Palestine and the surrounding regions. Evidence
>
> collected from sites in the Middle East confirms the existence of many
>
> customs, places, and peoples referred to in the Bible. To mention a few
>
> examples, the Old Testament record is consistent with archaeological data
>
> regarding religious practices (stone altars, blood sacrifices, holy
> mounts),
>
> nomadic life (tenting, herding, hospitality), cities (Rameses, Babylon,
>
> Jerusalem), nations (Egyptians, Assyrians, Canaanites), and kings
> (Sennacherib,
>
> Nebuchadnezzar, David). The New Testament also presents accurate
>
> history of first-century Palestine in regards to the Jewish religion
>
> (Pharisees, temples, sacrifices) and the Roman occupation (Pontius Pilate,
>
> centurions, crucifixion). And solid evidence supports the historical
> reality
>
> of a man named "Jesus of Nazareth" and the beginning of the Church.
>
> However, some Christians do not accept the historicity of Gen 1-11." p.
> 177
>
>
>
> So, don't assume that because the history in Gen 1-11 is ancient, that the
> rest of the Bible features a similar ancient understanding of history.
> This
> is an injudicious extrapolation.
>
>
>
>
>
> Mon Sep 21 2009 Bernie writes:
>
> "The idea of a firmament is wrong. Same with the idea of the Earth being
> stationary and unmoveable (it is moving 67,000 mph around the Sun), and
> the
> universe being geocentric. Lamoureux identifies ancient (and wrong)
> science
> and history. But he never identifies theology in the same way, explicitly,
> that it can be likewise "ancient and wrong" (but he does implicitly state
> it). Example of ancient theology that is wrong: A literal Adam brought sin
> and death into the world... something most TE's would say is theologically
> wrong (all those who don't accept a literal Adam)."
>
>
>
> Bernie, your rhetoric (use of the term "wrong") is irritating. The ancient
> science was the best science of the day, and it's what we would have
> accepted had we lived then.
>
>
>
> But more irritating is your comment that I "implicitly state" that the
> theology is "ancient and wrong." UTTER NONSENSE. Here is the first
> paragraph of the chapter that begins my hermeneutical thesis in
> Evolutionary
> Creation:
>
>
>
> "The Bible is a precious gift that has been given to us in order to reveal
>
> God and His will. Contained within its pages are the foundations of
>
> the Christian Faith-the creation of the world, the fall of humanity into
>
> sin, the offer of redemption through the Blood shed on the Cross, and
>
> the promise of eternal life. The Scriptures are also an everlasting source
>
> of spiritual nourishment for our soul. Through the power of the Holy
>
> Spirit, the Bible assures and encourages, challenges and admonishes, and
>
> equips men and women for a faithful life of good works. In particular,
>
> the primary purpose of God's Word is to reveal Jesus and the Father's
>
> unconditional love for all of us." p. 105
>
>
>
> Are you telling me that I believe the theology is "ancient and wrong"? As
> noted above, I refer to the theology as inerrant/infallible once every 2.5
> pages. So don't give me this NONSENSE that I "implicitly state" that the
> theology is "ancient and wrong," because I do not at all believe the
> theology is "wrong."
>
>
>
> It is clear to me that you only read what you wanted out of my book to
> serve
> your agenda, which is clearly just an attempt to justify your rejection of
> Christianity.
>
>
>
> [The next paragraph has got Bernie's approval to be posted because the
> contents came in a private e-mail]
>
> But let's get personal, because faith is not just an academic exercise. A
> month or so ago I asked you if you read the Bible DEVOTIONALLY. Your
> answer
> was a terse 'no'. Bernie, you're missing the point of God's Word
> completely. Scripture leads to a spiritual encounter. It is here to
> convict
> you and also to bless you. Reading the Bible entails having a set of ears
> that "hear." And though I don't for second believe in the historical
> reality
> of Adam and Eve, the account in Scripture about them is foundational to
> Christian Faith, because it reveals the inerrant and eternal truth of the
> human condition-we don't listen to God. And your non-devotional reading of
> the Bible is just like Adam and Eve's treatment of the words that God
> gives
> them in the garden. Like them, you just don't want to listen to His Word.
>
>
>
> It is my 30 year experience with hearing a "voice" in the Bible that leads
> me to reject the idea that Scripture has ancient theology. It contains a
> living theology that changes lives forever. I don't see the same impact
> of
> other ancient theologies (Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, etc.) on people
> today. But for most on this listserv, the "voice" in the Scripture is
> real,
> and it talks to them everyday. And that "voice" has got people praying for
> you, and concerned enough to challenge you.
>
>
>
> Now in your defense, I can empathize with you regarding the challenges of
> modern biblical criticism. It certainly shook the core of my being when I
> was exposed to it in seminary. In EC (pp. 348-350), I write about a moment
> at the end of Regent College when I was ready to toss the faith because I
> saw an ancient feature in Scripture (the pre-creative state of Gen 1:2).
> But
> at the same time that "voice" arose and put things in perspective. The
> Bible
> has an ancient vessel that carries the life-changing Words of God. But you
> need "ears" to hear that "voice."
>
>
>
> And I will also empathize with your tendency of focusing on the literature
> of the Bible. I'll confess that this has been an issue in my faith walk at
> times. As a theologian, I am always analyzing the Text critically, and
> it's
> easy to think that because I'm reading Scripture 8 hours a day that I'm in
> the Word all the time. NOT TRUE. I need devotional time in Scripture.
> Biblical criticism is great, but it's only a tool that serves us to get at
> the Message of Faith, and to understand the Holy Spirit's revelatory
> process. The Word was intended to be read DEVOTIONALLY. And that's the
> best
> part of reading the Bible-it results in a mystical encounter with God.
>
>
>
> To use an earthy example: People like you who focus just on the literature
> of Scripture through biblical criticism are like to those who limit sex
> with
> their spouse to just the anatomical and physiological facts of the act.
> They
> know all the physical details of sex, and when they are in bed with their
> spouse they keep their mind focused on the physical reality, missing
> completely the transcendent/spiritual/mystical character of the
> event/encounter. Those who only read the Bible critically are like those
> who
> fail to realize that there is something more to sex . . . it's called
> making
> love.
>
>
>
> So what's the bottom line: your arguments regarding Scripture are based on
> a
> misrepresentation and proof-texting of my work. Your so-called "ah ha"
> moment is an injudicious extrapolation of my views. It's rooted in
> simplistic conflations.
>
>
>
> Bernie, have more integrity than Adam and Eve as they attempted to justify
> themselves with silly excuses before the Lord (eg, Eve to God: It's the
> snake that made me do it, or Adam to God: It's the woman YOU put here with
> me that made me do it [!]). Bernie, just be honest, toss the excuses, the
> rationalizations, and the justifications aside, and just say you simply
> don't
> want to believe. You just don't want to listen to God.
>
>
>
> Over the last two years and two ASA meetings I have really enjoyed
> connecting with you and I quite appreciate your intensity in trying to
> make
> sense of things. You'll always be a pal.
>
>
>
> Best wishes in your future,
>
> Denis
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Sep 25 16:42:10 2009