On Wed, 17 Jul 1996, Glenn Morton wrote:
> Denis (one n) Lamoureux wrote:
>
>
> >Hey Dennis with 2 "n"s,
> >The notion of sensus plenior is often associated with Christological
> >typology. Glenn (two "n"s too) clearly holds a similar method with
> >regard to Gen 1, but his approach is better (and currently) termed
> >"concordism."
>
GM> I am stunned, a compliment for the hot air from Dallas. :-)
>
> >Support for Christological typology (rhetorically as unusual as it
> >appears) is from the NT's use of the OT. Concordism, however, is not
> >evident in the NT.
>
GM > Let me ask about Jesus' mention of the flood taking everyone away,
Matt.
> 24. It that not concordism? Or what about the treatment of Adam in the
> N.T. Does that not qualify as concordism? Afterall, they seemed to treat
> these people as real people i.e concording to reality.
No. That is absolute consonance, as I note in my next sentence.
Concordism is the practice of trying to accord purported discordant
reports. Jesus wasn't trying to accord the science of His day with Gen 1.
He was a YEC.
> > For that matter, excepting the notion of creatio ex
> >nihilo, the NT is consonant with Gen 1. Instead, concordism springs
> > from outside the Biblical tradition (but that is not to imply it is
> ungodly, I just think it is eisegetical).
>
GM > If I recall correctly, in our great eisegetical debate last Dec. and
Jan.
> you admitted that the ancient Hebrews would have treated Adam as if he
> were a real person. And they would have treated the 6 days as literal.
Your memory is quite correct. And I have fond memories of one of the most
fruitful exchanges I have ever had on this reflector. And you are right,
I am convinced the Hebrews were YEC.
> Given that, isn't any deviation from that view the eisegetical one? By
> this I mean the modern view that the days are not really days and Adam not
> really a person?
Excellent, excellent, excellent. Yes, any interpretation away from this
"YEC" interpretation is indeed eisegetical--from Hugh Ross' concordism to
you and Hayward's proclaimation thesis. So if you ask me what the
intentionality of Gen 1 is, it is indeed the YEC view--in 6 days, creation
by fiat, Adam & Eve, etc., etc. And that is exactly how I interpret
it. Thus I am an exegete.
However, despite believing that is indeed what Gen 1 both says and
intended to say, do I believe that is what really happened (as if we
recorded the events with a VCR [our term, "VCR history"])? My answer is
"NO." (After all I am one of those wicked CE [compromising
evangelical] evolutionists)
Gen 1 is state-of-the-art ancient near eastern science being used as a
vehicle under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to carry God's revelation;
specifically, ontological/theological propositional knowledge (eg, the
universe is a "creation," we've been created in God's image, sin is real,
etc., etc.)
God's revelation is not the "science" of Genesis, it's the theology . . .
the "stuff" you just can't put in test tubes--ie, ontological realities.
> I would also like to say that even those who believe in a looser view of
> Genesis are still concordists at heart.
Sure, and you and Hayward are examples of "looser" (2 "O"s ;-) ) guys than
Ross.
> I argued long and hard for the
> view that H. erectus is really human albeit a less technologically
> advanced human. This would require an ancient Adam. But most people
> wanted to say that Adam must have been coincident with the advent of
> anatomically modern humans. Why do people chose this point in time? So
> they can concord with the data!!! Thus they are concordists. Those who
> choose Adam at 35,000 years ago do so to concord with the advent of art in
> Europe (otherplaces did not show such artwork). A true non-concordits
> would say that Adam was created 17 million years ago, when there was no
> evidence of humans at all in any shape or form. That is what a real
> non-concordist would do.
And this very debate regarding Adam is indeed symptomatic of concordism.
> (Does anyone have a a desire to confess secret concordistic tendencies?)
Only 10 Hail Marys . . .
> > It has been around a long time, made significant inroads in the 19th
> >century geologcal/biological controversies, and is now manifested in an
> >inordinately resistant (virulent?) form as expressed by Hayward and our
> >recalcitrant friend Mr. Morton (that should get me a blast of hot Dallas
> >air up here in Northlands).
>
GM > I want to send you all the hot air I can. I want to get rid of this
> stuff. It is miserable here in the summers.
Thanks, pal. We need it up here, it hasn't been the best of summers.
As always,
Denis (a different sort of CE [concordist exterminator] ;-) )
----------------------------------------------------------
Denis O. Lamoureux DDS PhD PhD (cand)
Department of Oral Biology Residence:
Faculty of Dentistry # 1908
University of Alberta 8515-112 Street
Edmonton, Alberta Edmonton, Alberta
T6G 2N8 T6G 1K7
CANADA CANADA
Lab: (403) 492-1354
Residence: (403) 439-2648
Dental Office: (403) 425-4000
E-mail: dlamoure@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
"In all debates, let truth be thy aim, and endeavor to gain
rather than expose thy opponent."
------------------------------------------------------------