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

Dear Bernie,
Physical death entering the world is not a theological statement,
and thus it is not ancient theology. It's a statement about nature,
an ancient understanding about the origin of physical death, according
to ancient Hebrew science.

Once again, you are committing the error of CONFLATION.

Best,
Denis

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 2:58 PM
Subject: 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.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Sep 26 19:13:22 2009