I'd have to say that Bernie is right on this one. To say that sin bringing
physical death was not a theological statement/belief by the Apostle Paul
and others is a real stretch, to put it mildly. It's akin to the
fundamentalist rhetoric that tries to reconcile an "inerrant text" with
various textual anomalies/discrepancies through various forms of verbal
gymnastics. In many cases I think such attempts are reasonable, but in some
cases they go over the top.
Here's an example of ancient theology. God told Moses that the Israelites
should keep the Passover (with very detailed formula and ritual) as a
perpetual sacrifice through all their generations. So was circumcision and
a wide range of other ordinances for that matter. Yet with the advent of
Christianity, Christians (even Jewish Christians) don't need to practice
those ordinances, because as Paul wrote, Jesus is our Passover, circumcision
is over the heart, etc. I believe this is true, and that Jesus is the
fulfillment of the ordinances given to the Jews. We accept that what was
once "ancient theology" was later transcended by a greater revelation in
Judeo-Christian history. To say that the outward ordinances of Jewish
practice were merely "outward ritual" and not part of their "ancient
theology" would be completely post hoc.
Yet there is another theology that is relevant, both ancient and modern.
God said he gives "line upon line, precept upon precept" (Isa 28). The
revelation of Christ brought a great deal of additional light and
elucidation of previous theologies, but we also have to recognize that
natural revelation has at least some ability and license to inform our
understanding "line upon line" as well. At least IMHO this is a valid way
of looking at it, for what it's worth.
I'm not saying that in the case of Adam we have to yield the theology to
modern naturalistic explanations of hominid history. There are several
nuanced explanations for Adam, his sin, and his place in human history that
I think merit consideration, without throwing out the whole doctrine of
Adam, sin, or certainly Christianity.
Jon Tandy
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 10:54 AM
To: asa
Subject: RE: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments (was: RE:
(fall-away) TE and apologetics)
Denis said:
"Physical death entering the world is not a theological statement "
Thank you for clearly stating that.
I think it is wrong, but I appreciate the answer. The ancient idea is that
Adam sinned (which is theological), and this sin brought physical death (you
say the Apostle Paul taught this, and I agree). Therefore, death is the
result of sin, even the direct consequence, yet you say it is not
theological.
To me that is like the Catholic claim that they never change doctrine. Used
to be, if you ate meat on Friday, it was a mortal sin (lost salvation = go
to hell). Now it isn't a sin (in the USA anyway). Ask them, didn't doctrine
change? They say that wasn't a doctrine. But yet it was able to threaten
loss of salvation. Seems inconsistent to me.
I also think I can come up with an even more obvious example of 'ancient
theology,' so I'll try again later.
...Bernie
-----Original Message-----
From: Denis O. Lamoureux [mailto:dlamoure@ualberta.ca]
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 4:12 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie; asa
Subject: 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.
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 12:37:54 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Sep 28 2009 - 12:37:54 EDT