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

These fixed points cannot be avoided:

1) There is no way to avoid logically the notion of the existence of a Creator.

2) It is the nature of faith to have doubts.

3) Everybody is a believer, even the atheists. Find out what beliefs fit all the data that you know, scientific data or otherwise.

Moorad
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Dick Fischer [dickfischer@verizon.net]
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 10:48 AM
To: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments (was: RE: (fall-away) TE and apologetics)

It sounds as though Bernie is undergoing a crisis of faith which I know from personal experience to be an agonizing, gut-wrenching experience. When the Washington Post gave me my fifteen minutes of fame in 1986 I thought I had stumbled into the perfect Bible-science answer after only one year of commitment to the Christian faith.

Adam came too late to start the human race I reasoned and therefore was “injected” into humanity to start the Old Covenant. Noah marries outside the Adamic race. The flood intervenes obliterating all humanity save the eight on the ark. Through Noah, all would be related to Adam and through Noah’s wife all Noah’s descendants would be related also to Mitochondrial Eve and all the way back to the beginnings of humanity and indeed to the beginnings of life.

After the Washington Post gave me a degree of notoriety and nobody could come up with any better answers, I joined the ASA, enrolled in seminary, and began researching for a book to bequeath to all mankind an answer that would satisfy the facts of science and history and substantiate the elements of our Christian faith.

About four years into the project I hit a wall of reality. Not only does Adam come too late to commence our species, the flood comes too late to terminate it. Bummer. All that hard work and my “answer” didn’t fit the facts. Oh, I could have soldiered on, ala Hugh Ross, and tried to palm off a solution contrary to fact and reason, but instead I went through a crisis of faith.

I reached the conclusion that the Bible wasn’t all it was cracked up to be and maybe the entirety of the Christian faith was similarly flawed. Plus I was tired of living a chaste life and yearned to return to my old ways of living which I had perfected into an art form. So there were numerous tugs, it wasn’t just my conclusion that the Bible was flawed. As a result I dropped out of ASA and seminary, stopped going to church, and nearly prayed a prayer of unsalvation to rid myself of any vestiges of Christianity, and of course, accountability.

A year and a half passed and a colleague of mine in real estate showed me a short paragraph in a book he was reading about the history of the ancient Near East, and it resonated with what I already knew from Genesis. This small snippet of revelation spurred me on to dig deeper and eventually what I learned over the next twenty years of countless trips via metro rail to the Library of Congress was published last year.

What Bernie seems to be suffering from is exactly what plagued me (I don’t know about his personal life). And that is the answers he hears (Job got answers too) don’t match the facts as he knows them. And something has to give. I truly empathize with anybody who experiences this. All I can say is that increasing my knowledge base and perseverance worked for me.

Dick Fischer, author, lecturer
Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham
www.historicalgenesis.com<http://www.historicalgenesis.com>

----- Original Message -----
From: <gmurphy10@neo.rr.com<mailto:gmurphy10@neo.rr.com>>
To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>>; "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com<mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>>
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 3:39 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments (was: RE:
(fall-away) TE and apologetics)

> The idea that physical death did not exist before humanity came on the
> scene is an historical & scientific assertion. Paul, of course, accepting
> this idea along as part of this Jewish tradition (though such ideas are
> not limited to that tradition) gave it a theological interpretation. But
> it has to be admitted that the categories of history & theology are not
> easily disentangled.
>
> I think those who are inclined to continue to discuss matters with Bernie
> here could take a salutary lesson from my exchange with him a few weeks
> ago on the question of whether or not general relativity puts a geocentric
> reference frame on the same level as a heliocentric one. (Briefly, it
> does.) In spite of the fact that Bernie is not a specialist in relativity
> theory as I am, he refused to recognize the validity of my explanations.
> He is following the same pattern here with Denis, failing to acknowledge
> the misinterpretations he put on the statements of an OT scholar & instead
> demanding "pithy answers" to his own questions. A word to the wise -
> which I intend to follow myself after this post.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
>
>
> ---- "Dehler wrote:
>> 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<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<mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>>
>> To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu<mailto: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<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.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Sep 27 11:12:48 2009