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

Dear Bill,
You are not missing the point at all.
In fact you got it completely.

You wrote:
> Or is this just a way of putting a spear between the two so we can say
> that the science had changed, but the theology didn't?

If we don't do this, then we will have
to extend inerrancy to a 3-tier universe.

The inerrant theology changes lives, not
the firmament once believed to be over
our heads.

Best,
Denis

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Powers" <wjp@swcp.com>
To: "Denis O. Lamoureux" <dlamoure@ualberta.ca>
Cc: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>; "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 8:12 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments (was: RE:
(fall-away) TE and apologetics)

>I know I'm missing the point. So perhaps I should not butt in.
> But what does it matter whether we label it "science" or "theology"?
> Ancient science or ancient theology?
>
> Or is this just a way of putting a spear between the two so we can say
> that the science had changed, but the theology didn't? Or something of
> the sort.
>
> Perhaps discussion is required to know how to distinguish theology from
> science, e.g., by methodology, etc.
>
> bill
>
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009, Denis O. Lamoureux wrote:
>
>> 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 18:45:44 2009