On Sat, 23 Dec 1995 15:28:17 -0700 (MST) you wrote:
SJ>Sorry Denis, but I am unimpressed by this "pulling rank", ie. the
>argument from authority ...I would be more impressed if you posted the
>arguments for and against the 2AM that were discussed in your "evangelical
>schools".
DL>Stephen, as you will note I qualified this "argument" from
>authority, so you don't have to parrot to me what the argument is all
>about.
I did not "parrot" anything. I gave examples of arguments from
authority, with a :-) after them.
DL>But there
>is indeed a real difference between those who are amateur theologians and
>those who are professional theologians. I personally have experienced
>that shift because I did not begin academic theology till age 30.
Sorry Denis, but I am neither confirming or denying the value of
theological training. I simply invited you to post these
"professional theologians" arguments for and against the 2-Adam model.
DL>My theology prior to this training
>was wonderfully creedal and consistent with the historical Christian faith.
>And this theology remains UTTERLY the SAME after three graduate school
>degrees. However, with regard to the more difficult issues (eg,
>eschatology, this creation debate), in my pre-academic years (and yes I
>read anything I could get my hands on) I was like a kid who had
>a yellow belt in karate . . . I knew just enough to be dangerous to myself
>(and anyone one who wanted to believe me!). And before you charge me with
>pulling rank, again, I am quite aware of what I am saying. But take it
>from me Stephen, there is something to be said for the process of
>professional training. It is an act of humility and discipline that the
>amateur never experiences, and its fruits many times can only be
>appreciated by those who have experienced the process.
See above. I am not arguing against "professional training" in
general. I am asking you to post the *arguments* (for and against)
that these "professional theologians" considered when they rejected
the 2-Adam model.
DL>Bluntly, between the two of us, only one of us intimately
>understands and has experienced the minds of both the amateur and
>professional theologian.
Good for you, but I am unimpressed. :-) Please post any *arguments*
you have about the 2AM.
DL>My point is this: Those who do theology at a professional level
>don't even consider the 2 Adam theory worthy of mention in their
>classes (and not even as a historical caveat!). The 2 Adam theory is
>not even a debate and not part of the professional literature (and I
>hope you understand what I mean by the latter--no, it does not mean
>"any theology book in print"; eg, one published by ICR. I refer to
>the modern professional journals like Vetus Testamentum (latin for
>Old Testament).
So they have not even considered it? Now I am really unimpressed
by your "professional theologians"! I wonder if they believe in a
literal Adam?
DL>The 2 Adam theory in theology is like the geocentric theory in
>astronomy--it is never discussed because what is the sense in reinventing
>the wheel? Of course, there are geocentricists around, but they are
>amateurs (usually very loud personalities at that) and as a result
>non-contributors to the field.
I have also noticed this "guilt by association" theme in your posts to
me Denis. By associating the 2-Adam model with "the geocentric
theory" you hope to discredit it and possibly me? Well, I am not a
YEC and neither am I a "geocentricists".
I am not impressed by your attempts to discourage me. I will proceed
with my paper on the 2-Adam model. I invite you to post your or your
"professional theologians" *arguments* against the 2AM.
Denis, I really think you should get another tagline:
"In all debates, let truth be thy aim, and endeavor to gain
rather than expose thy opponent."
You've sure got a funny way of endeavoring "to gain...thy opponent".