Re: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments

I agree, George.

Pete

On Sep 29, 2009, at 7:47 PM, George Murphy wrote:

> And here is where the core theological issue emerges - the meaning
> of "the gospel." The gospel is fundamentally the person and work of
> Jesus Christ, through whom & for whom all things were created & by
> whose cross the world wll things are reconciled to God. All the
> other aspects of theology - how sin got started &c - are interesting
> and important but they are not the gospel. The failure to realize &/
> or appreciate this leads to an appalling over-emphasis on secondary
> issues as if they, rather than Christ, were the article by which the
> church stands or falls. And the failure of churches to keep Christ
> front and center has led to a loss of faith of far too many
> Christians - I suspect Bernie is one example though I don't know
> enough of his personal history to say for sure - when they find out
> that they've been misled &/or mistaken about what is really a
> peripheral matter.
>
> I don't want to be misunderstood. Creation is important, law is
> important, and the Old Testament is important. But any theology in
> which christology is seen as just one more doctrine alongside those
> other matters is seriously defective. Those whose faith is limited
> to acceptance of some propositions found in a supposedly inerrant
> book are riding for a fall.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pete Enns" <peteenns@mac.com>
> To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
> Cc: "Denis O. Lamoureux" <dlamoure@ualberta.ca>; "Jim Armstrong" <jarmstro99@q.com
> >; "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 7:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments
>
>
>> Gen 1 is definitely less controversial than Gen 2ff. The same
>> reasoning that applies to Gen 1 when applied to Gen 2-3 yields a
>> view that many Christians are not willing to accept because of
>> what is perceived to be at stake: the gospel itself.
>>
>>
>> On Sep 29, 2009, at 2:28 PM, Michael Roberts wrote:
>>
>>> Pete
>>>
>>> That is interesting. I have been doing a long study on the
>>> history of Genesis interpretations and have focused mostly on
>>> Gen ! (paper published in Geol Soc of London spec publication). In
>>> a sense it is the least controversial part.
>>>
>>> If you take Buffon in the 18 century, the controversy he caused
>>> was over the historicity of the Flood not geological time. Most
>>> miss that. Even RC priests J Needham were arguing for millions of
>>> years in the 1760s and getting imprimaturs!
>>>
>>> Gen 2-3 are more challenging,
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pete Enns" <peteenns@mac.com>
>>> To: "Denis O. Lamoureux" <dlamoure@ualberta.ca>
>>> Cc: "Jim Armstrong" <jarmstro99@q.com>; "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 6:42 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments
>>>
>>>
>>>> Denis,
>>>>
>>>> This is my main criticism of John Walton, too. I think he is
>>>> doing marvelous work helping people who are struggling with the
>>>> implications of Gen 1. I will likely see him at SBL in November,
>>>> and I hope to ask him whether he intends to continue he work
>>>> into Gen 2-3.
>>>>
>>>> I also am not entirely convinced of his material/function
>>>> distinction, but it is certainly valuable to consider.
>>>>
>>>> Pete Enns
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 29, 2009, at 12:42 PM, Denis O. Lamoureux wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Jim,
>>>>> It's easy for Walton to use his "it ain't about material origins,
>>>>> but functional origins" in Gen 1.
>>>>>
>>>>> But did you notice something? HE STOPS AT GEN 1.
>>>>> Why doesn't he use his thesis on Gen 2 and Adam?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ask him if he thinks Gen 2 is historical? He works at
>>>>> Wheaton College, and if he says there is no HISTORICAL
>>>>> Adam, then he's gone . . . .
>>>>>
>>>>> D
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Armstrong" <jarmstro99@q.com
>>>>> >
>>>>> To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 8:19 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [asa] "Evolutionary Creation" book comments
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you are dead on. John Walton, OT scholar from Wheaton
>>>>>> presented a lecture for Canyon Institute for Advanced Studies
>>>>>> in Phoenix in 2006 titled, "Reading Genesis with 1 with
>>>>>> Ancient Eyes: What Does it Mean to Create?" In it, he
>>>>>> discussed at some length this matter of ancient perspective,
>>>>>> and I believe he would agree entirely with your surmise that
>>>>>> the division implicit in those the two words would be
>>>>>> incomprehensible to those ancient eyes. Science had neither
>>>>>> defined nor differentiated itself in those days. Nor did they
>>>>>> did not think in material terms per se, instead understanding
>>>>>> everything as a part of God's presence and activity in the
>>>>>> world. Walton mentions that "miracle" is a New Testament
>>>>>> word, things that denote some departure from what nature has
>>>>>> the capacity to do in the material world. In contrast, the OT
>>>>>> terms are signs and wonders, and distinctly (he says) not
>>>>>> about shuffling material things about, again because those
>>>>>> ancient eyes and hearts (a western term) do not have a
>>>>>> framework at all like western material-based terminology and
>>>>>> explanation. He suggested our traditional way of interpreting
>>>>>> much of Gen. 1, for example, would fall on the ancient ears
>>>>>> about as well as an explanation of daylight saving time.
>>>>>> JimA [Friend of ASA]
>>>>>> Murray Hogg wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Denis,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I actually wonder if using the terms "science" and "history"
>>>>>>> in this context isn't - in the end analysis - anachronistic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd offer the observation that what "pre-modern" societies do
>>>>>>> is tell stories - they don't do "science", and they don't
>>>>>>> record "history". And if one can escape the need to force
>>>>>>> Genesis into either category, then the result is very
>>>>>>> liberating. One can even begin to read Genesis theologically
>>>>>>> as per the entire point of the narrative!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here I think much benefit might be gained from a familiarity
>>>>>>> with the field of ethnohistory - which discipline gives some
>>>>>>> interesting insights into the way non-Western and pre-modern
>>>>>>> societies deal with their past. It's on my list of subjects
>>>>>>> to get around to "one day."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually, as I think about it, this might be more or less
>>>>>>> another way of putting your entreaty of "Separate, don't
>>>>>>> conflate", viz; if one can discriminate between "history",
>>>>>>> "science", and "story" -- where "story" is a way of
>>>>>>> conveying meaning (theological meaning in the case of
>>>>>>> Genesis) -- then one is, I think, well on the way to
>>>>>>> resolving the "problem" which arises in light of our
>>>>>>> modernist inability to see that there is more than one way
>>>>>>> of conveying spiritual truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Blessings,
>>>>>>> Murray
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Denis O. Lamoureux wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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 21:09:17 2009