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

Denis said:
"Re-read my post. I gave you the answer."

I disagree, Denis. You mentioned 'sin entering the world' and I mentioned 'physical death entering the world.' I'm trying to give an obvious example of 'ancient theology.'

I think all TE's know that Adam did not bring physical death into the world, and you made the point in your book that the Bible (Apostle Paul) teaches explicitly that Adam brought physical death into the world because of Adam's sin. So what prevents you from identifying that as an "ancient theology?"

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Denis O. Lamoureux [mailto:dlamoure@ualberta.ca]
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 1:41 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie; asa
Subject: 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 16:59:41 2009