On Fri, 15 Dec 1995 22:41:26 -0700 (MST) you wrote:
[...]
DL>The "bad theology" I refer to is the exegesis of Gen 1-11. I can't
>think of many evangelical professional theologians who actually work
>on these early chapters (ie, publish in professional journals) and
>hold to YEC or PC exegetical models...actually can't think of one.
SJ>I can't speak for YEC, but as for PC, try Kidner, who while he
doesn't >declare for PC, seems to hold views compatible with PC:
>
>"To the present author various converging lines point to an Adam much
>nearer our own times than the early tool-makers and artists, let alone
>their remote forbears. On the face of it, the ways of life described
>in Genesis 4 are those of the neolithic and first metal-working
>cultures alluded to above, i.e., of perhaps eight or ten thousand
>years ago, less or more. The memory of names and genealogical details
>also suggests a fairly compact period between Adam and Noah1 rather
>than a span of tens or hundreds of millennia, an almost unimaginable
>stretch of time to chronicle." (Kidner D., "Genesis: An Introduction
>and Commentary" Tyndale Press: London, 1967, p28).
DL>This does not exactly support PC. Besides, this is 30 years out of
>date.
Who says it does not support PC? I am a PC and I find it very
supportive. As for being out of date, a 1967 date does not mean
a book is not up to date. You seem to subscibe to the "what's newest
is truest" school of thought! :-) The Bible is over 2,000 years old,
but that is completely up-to-date!
SJ>As for mainstream evangelical theologians, try Erickson:
>"More adequate is the position termed progressive creationism.
>According to this view, God created in a series of acts over a long
>period of time. He created the first member of each "kind." That
>grouping may have been as broad as the order or as narrow as the
>genus. In some cases it may have extended to the creation of
>individual species. From that first member of the group, the others
>developed by evolution. So, for example, God may have created the
>first member of the cat family." (Erickson M.J., "Christian
>Theology", Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1985, p383)
DL>Two points:
>1) I tried getting this across to Jim Bell, but I guess I just wasn't
>a very good communicator. But there is a world of difference between a
>BIBLICAL THEOLOGIAN and a SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGIAN . . . as much
>difference as there is between a SURGEON and an INTERNIST. Sure, with
>regard to the latter, both are doctors, but their practice of medicine is
>every bit as different as the two types of theologians I have cited. My
>statement in my post regards BIBLICAL THEOLOGIANS, specifically
>specialists in Genesis 1-11, and not SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGIANS
>like Erickson.
No, you weren't a good communicator! :-) You said "....evangelical
professional theologians...", not Biblical Theologians. Besides, I
don't accept your distinction. Erickson is one of the greatest modern
evangelical theologicans, Biblical or otherwise. What he writes on
the Biblical doctrine of Creation is not to be dismissed lightly.
DL>2) This Erickson quote is great because it is so typical of the
>vagueness of the PC position. Where exactly does God intervene to create
>the "kind"? An order? genus? or species? . . . looks like he's got all the
>bases covered. This is the problem with PC, no PC is willing to assert a
>definitive place where God has entered to create. It is easy for PCs
>to criticize standard evolutionary theory, but have they ever given us a
>definitive formula of God's activity? The PC position is essence drive
>by intellectual shooting.
I think you misunderstand PC. It is mainly a high-level model that
endeavours to be true to the kind of God revealed in the Bible and to
the facts of science *in that order*. It does not matter greatly to
PC where God intervenes, but that He does.
My own personal view is that God intervenes at the lowest possible
level - in the genome of an *individual* (or inividuals) within a
species. This may be very subtle, eg. a point mutation caused by a
directed cosmic ray. It is ultimately undetectable, just as it is in
naturalistic macro-evolution. Science has never, and probably will
never, identify the exact source of a macro-evolutionary event:
"These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and
irreversible. It is as impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a
fish as it is to effect the reverse transformation. The applicability
of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical
processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals
involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter.
And yet, it is just such impossibility that is demanded by
antievolutionists when they ask for "proofs" of evolution which they
would magnanimously accept as satisfactory." (Dobzhansky T., "On
methods of evolutionary biology and anthropology, Part 1, biology'.
American Scientist, vol. 45(5), December 1957, p388).
I would point out if evolution claims it is unfair to be asked for
exact details of macro-evolutionary events, then they can hardly turn
around and demand that PC supply them!
SJ>Mostly in the "exegesis of Gen 1-11" by "evangelical professional
>theologians" the issue of PC does not arise.
DL>Yes, you are correct. And the reason is none will argue that Gen
>1-11 supports PC. Rather, they see these chapters as an ancient Near
>Eastern cosmology.
Well of course it is "an ancient Near Eastern cosmology". It is also
a unique revelation from God! :-) If God is the author of both the
book of nature and the book of Scripture, we should expect to find
ultimate harmony between them. If Gn 1-11 speaks of the origin of the
universe, life, life's major groups, and man, we should expect the two
picturesof reality to be complementary. If Gn 2-11 contains a record
of
early human history, complete with place and nation names, and human
activity (eg. farming, metal-working, etc) then we should expect it
ultimately agree with anthropology and history.
I'm not yet ready to consign Gn 1-11 to the realm of unhistorical
mythology, especially since my Lord Jesus Christ seemed to believe it
was historical.
SJ>Most will simply point
>out that Gn 1-11 does not require belief that the days of Gn 1 were
>24-hours or that the Flood covered the whole Earth, and get on with
>exegeting the text for its real meaning (ie. making one wise unto
>salvation 2Tim 3:15).
DL>Agreed, again. And that is what is most important. Amen.
Thanks. We should never forget that in our disputes over PC vs TE.
DL>Joyeux Noel mon ami du sud,
I presume that is something nice? :-) "If any man speak in an unknown
tongue...let one interpret" (1Cor 14:27)! Same to you with brass
knobs on! :-)
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------