Re: [asa] restrained accommodationism?

{reposted)
Merv:
You have asked an interesting question. I do not know the answer. I can
only speak for myself. I think that perhaps the term accommodationist
has turned up in this forum just in the last couple of weeks -- I have
been a subscriber for a comparatively short period. Since the term has
turned up, I need to consider my position in relation to it. I think
that I should probably describe myself as a macro-concordist and a
micro-accomodationist! I start with a need for concord between God's
Book of Scripture and God's Book of Nature. That is a fundamental
principle. The details that follow are secondary. I then treat
individual passages of scripture on their own merits. When it comes to
Genesis 1-11 (and Genesis 1 in particular) I find myself ending up with
an accommodationist view *after* I have examined the pros and cons of
the various interpretations of that passage. To me Genesis 1 speaks as a
polemic against foreign gods, expressed in language and concepts
understood in ancient Israel, and that means that seeking a concord with
modern science is completely irrelevant -- I read many of the recent
threads here with some bemusement, wondering why what seems obvious to
me is not obvious to so many other people!
Don

mrb22667@kansas.net wrote:

>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.
Received on Fri Jun 30 19:26:30 2006