Re: [asa] restrained accommodationism?

Merv -

I can only speak for myself & can't give any statistics on who "we" are
collectively, though I suspect that the distribution on the list is more
heavily weighted in the "concordism" direction than you 1st thought.

I would hesitate to describe myself as an "accomodationist" since
"accomodation" isn't a principle which I hold, & I don't immediately appeal
to accomodation in order to solve any & all problems of biblical
interpretation. My more fundamental (really _most_ fundamental) theological
position is a theology of the cross, & my appeals to the idea of
accomodation are based on that fundamental position. In support of this
arguments I've referred a couple of times previously to my brief essay
"Couldn't God Get It Right?" which can be found at
http://www.elca.org/faithandscience/covalence/story/default.asp?Copyright=06-03-15&Author=murphy&Pages=1 )

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----
From: <mrb22667@kansas.net>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 3:19 PM
Subject: [asa] restrained accommodationism?

>
> My early impression of this [ASA] list was that most of you are TEs, and
> that
> with that you are probably accommodationists of varying degree. Yet since
> I've
> been lurking over the last months, the most active threads have always
> involved
> concordism of varying flavors. (i.e. debates over Adam as Neolithic, or
> ancient, etc. -but always as a historical person) so much so to make me
> think
> my impression was mistaken.
>
> Are most of you actually concordists who just differ over the details? Am
> I
> alone in my thoughts that my faith would not be much affected if, for
> example,
> Jonah, Job, NT parables, (or even early Genesis) was not completely
> historical -
> in fact, some of it maybe not historical at all -- but yet is truth
> without
> having to be so in the modern/historical sense?
>
> Granted the difficulties much expressed about messy transition between
> early
> Genesis mythology (NOT to be taken as a demeaning term here) and the
> necessary
> historicity in later Genesis, that problem seems no less messy than
> awkwardly
> forced concordisms.
>
> Or is my original impression correct, and you just find yourselves engaged
> with
> a vocal group of well-researched and persistent concordists (who do
> indeed
> bring a great wealth of knowledge and perspective to the debate - don't
> get me
> wrong.)
>
> As always, I'm sure my inquiry is the umpteenth of its nature on this list
> history, and any patience you all choose to extend is always appreciated.
> You
> have every right to start saying: To your inquiry (#23) we respond with
> devastating reply #219 and for penance read "you idiot" #64. Or you can
> just
> refer to earlier posts. But I do mostly appreciate the exchange here
> from all
> sides be they concordist or accomodationist -- or at least the ones I've
> taken
> time to read out of the volumes written.
>
> --merv
>
> Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines. --Steven
> Wright
>
> 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 Fri Jun 30 16:40:27 2006