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

Denis said:
" to deliver the inerrant Message of Faith that sin entered the world because of humans."

But sin did NOT enter the world because of humans. If we truly disagree on this, let me know, so I can explain where sin really came from.

But I think we do agree, because we both know there is no human (or group of humans) that arose to be the first sinner(s). Correct?

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Denis O. Lamoureux [mailto:dlamoure@ualberta.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 9:54 AM
To: Dehler, Bernie; asa
Subject: Re: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments (was: RE: (fall-away) TE and apologetics)

Dear Bernie,
I love you too! You remind me of Mike Behe.
We can go at it with bare knuckles, but when
the discussion is over, we leave the disagreements
back in the ring. It never gets personal with Mike.
He's gem of a guy.

OK
The question "Where did sin come from?" is
a theological question, BUT, and here is the BUT,
BUT the Bible answers this question using an
ancient scientific vessel (de novo creation of Adam)
to deliver the inerrant Message of Faith that
sin entered the world because of humans. In other
words, Scripture doesn't tell us exactly how this
happened in the past.

Bernie, I know this is COUNTERINTUITIVE (this
is why I repeated this term thru my books), but
you must SEPARATE the inerrant Message from the
incidental ancient understanding of nature (the science),
and NOT CONFLATE them together.

Pithy enough?
d

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 10:00 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments (was: RE:
(fall-away) TE and apologetics)

> Denis, I would ask this:
>
> Is this a theological question: "Where did sin come from?"
>
> If yes, and the Bible is a book of theology, what answer, or answers, does
> the Bible give? It sounds to me like you are claiming the Bible gives no
> theological answer to that theological question.
>
> By the way, I greatly appreciate the to-the-point pithy responses. That's
> why you are my favorite author on this topic ;-)
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Denis O. Lamoureux [mailto:dlamoure@ualberta.ca]
> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 3:37 PM
> To: Dehler, Bernie; asa
> Subject: 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.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Sep 29 13:00:07 2009