Re: In defense of Paul Seely

For Bob Schneider,

Bob Schneider wrote:

>>>>t doesn't matter what cosmological models we humans construct; they all
will differ from the biblical model. Historically, theologians have always
sought to find a modus vivendi with the current cosmology. The commonly
acknowledged theological truth, however, is that the doctrine of creation
remains, even as the understanding of the nature of the God-World
relationship is re-articulated in the light of new cosmological knowledge.
The doctrine is not dependent upon the model, however, and that is why one
can honor the cosmology of Genesis 1 for what it was, the matrix for
theological truth but a matrix recognizable to its own time and place, and
not insist that somehow it must be able to be consonant with every new
current cosmological model historically--to become all things to all men.<<<

Is there anyway, anyhow, under any circumstances that one could possibly, conceivably conclude that Genesis is
false? If not, why is this view any different from the YECs who believe that evidence doesn't matter?

How wrong does Genesis have to be before you decide it is false?

Is Genesis going to be teaching the true doctrine of creation regardless of how wrong it is when compared with
scientific data?

I would also ask about the flexibility of religion. Science, when it finds out it is wrong, eventually changes
the paradigm. But above, you argue that the paradigm (divine creation) should stay static regardless of the
data or lack there of supporting the assertion. How is that different from a YEC who claims that the Bible is
true and we should believe in a 6000 year old earth because the doctrine of the young-earth is what is
important?

Rich Blinne wrote:

>>>> Glenn, this is somewhat of a non sequiter. Accomodationism does not
say the data so to speak is bad. Rather, it follows the New Testament
doctrine that the Old Testament was mysterious and thus not fully
perspicacious. Trying to find a spherical Earth in the OT is similar
to finding the Trinity in the OT. Calvin when interpreting Genesis 1
resisted the temptation of saying since Elohim could be interpreted as
plural that it taught the Trinity. Furthermore, accomodationism
encourages efforts such as yours and Dick's to find concord and only
parts company when the case appears overstated or where a
falsification of a particular concord unnecessarily falsifies the
whole. Both camps ultimately have the same goal of exegeting rather
than eisegeting the text and in my opinion are good correctives for
each other. The concordists call the accomodationists when they make
the text rather than the contemporary understanding of the text in
error and the accomodationists call the concordists when the alleged
concord is forced and overstated.<<<

Well, this is one of the things old earth creationism has in common with young-earth creationism. All the
explanations are mutually exclusive. If you look above, you will see that Bob says basically that the
accommodated Biblical cosmology will always be wrong no matter what. You on the other hand say that
accommodationalism doesn’t believe that the data is bad. The data can’t both be wrong and not bad at the same
time. Logic is logic and I find this game so much fun because I frankly am beginning to feel that I am
dealing with old-earth YECs.

I disagree with your claim that accommodationalism encourages concordism. I have over an over been told that
concordism is the wrong approach.

As I see it, accommodationalists don’t really care if the statements in the Bible is true. Paul S. said this
earlier, that an accommodated statement can be false . He said:

PHS: I agree that a propositional statement is either true or false. I also
agree that an accommodated statement can be false, and often is.
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200606/0082.html

That too, falsifies your claim that accommodationalism does not say the data is bad. Paul says it does.

So does this:

“Very well stated. I've tried to make the same point in the past, but with notable lack of success. A
hypothetical Concordist may find their cosmological science in Genesis, but their great-great...-great-
grandparents would not because cosmology has changed. So then presumably our concordist predecessors would
have been justified in rejecting Christianity. Concordism is always present-day oriented, which in and of
itself virtually guarantees that at best it can only be right some of the time.”
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200606/0196.html

I would ask Karl, if this means that we should never change our theological view or intepretation of
scripture. YOu do, know, don't you that this is what the YECs implicitly say.
Received on Wed Jun 7 23:01:17 2006