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

Dear Bernie,
You are a scrapper my friend!

You write:
> Ancient theological idea:
> Adam was the first human to sin.
>
> This statement is nothing but theology

NOT true. It's ancient science (creation
and existence of Adam) delivering an inerrant
and Holy Spirit-inspired theology (sin is
very real and humans are sinners).

Bernie: Separate, Don't Conflate!

Best,
Denis

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 10:58 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments (was: RE:
(fall-away) TE and apologetics)

>I guess the most obvious example of 'ancient and wrong' theology would be
>my original point about Adam bringing sin into the world.
>
> Ancient theological idea:
> Adam was the first human to sin.
>
> This statement is nothing but theology.
>
> Denis and I (as when I was a Christian) both reject it on the grounds that
> we both believe there is no literal Adam. Therefore- there is no way that
> Adam could introduce sin in to the world given that there was no literal
> Adam.
>
> Denis, I read your original answer and you explain it like this, in my own
> words: If one says "Adam brought sin in to the world" they are mixing the
> ancient (wrong) science of the day with correct theology:
>
> Ancient (wrong) since and history: Adam was first human and is a
> historical person.
> Theology (which is true): Sin is in the world
>
> The problem is that the statement "Adam was the first human and brought
> sin into the world" is purely theological, taught in the Bible, and
> received/believed as such by followers. "How did sin enter the world" is
> a purely theological question, and there is no alternative theory (that I
> know of) presented in the Bible.
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 8:54 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.
>

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 18:37:43 2009