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

Denis said:
"Bernie, don't you ever question George on physics"

Denis- that's like saying don't ever question you on theology.

And for the record, I think if an impartial person went over the history of the communication with George and I, you would see that in the end I fully agreed with him on all physics... including the line that he eventually acknowledged that there are some cases where a geocentric frame of reference won't work.

If people want to respond, I hope they do so without the 'attitude.' And there was plenty of attitude in George's last comment on this.

Remember- Christians are supposed to be able to give a reason for their belief with gentleness and respect... if they believe in using the Bible for devotion (written to all readers; no one specifically).

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Denis O. Lamoureux [mailto:dlamoure@ualberta.ca]
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 4:23 PM
To: gmurphy10@neo.rr.com; asa; Dehler, Bernie
Subject: Re: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments (was: RE: (fall-away) TE and apologetics)

Dear Bernie,
Gonna give you a little free advice and story about George.

About 10 years ago I was at an ASA meeting sitting behind
him in a lecture. It was not a good lecture. At the end of the
lecture I leaned forward and George had written out a physics
formula that had filled an entire page. And yes, being a biologist,
my level of physics envy redlined.

Bernie, don't you ever question George on physics . . . unless of
course you want to change your name to Phillip E. Johnson . . .

Denis

----- Original Message -----
From: <gmurphy10@neo.rr.com>
To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>; "Dehler, Bernie" <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]
>> 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.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Sep 28 11:48:53 2009