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

Dear Bernie,
No true.
You can question me because theology is easy compared to
George's physics. You don't need the massive math skills
of a physicist to do biblical exegesis, but you need these
to do physics at George's level.
Denis

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 9:47 AM
Subject: 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.
>

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 18:15:43 2009