Re: [asa] restrained accommodationism?

I agree with David's point (I don't mean to suggest any of us would be
purists), but the categories still retain their usefulness for purposes
of recognition.

The "necessary historicity" was just my reference to points previously
made by others here that at some point in Genesis we almost all agree it
has become actual history -- with the strictest concordists saying it
was history from the first word (for them the Bible is all or nothing),
and the least strict willing to dabble in "non-historical" explanations
on up through the flood and even beyond should they deem it necessary.
I think the point was made that it would be difficult to spell out how
such transition could work. It does introduce a messy seam, hard to
explain -- but not impossible I would think (who says it has to be a
clean break?). But we all do agree, don't we?, that Abraham was a
real person, and to deny that historiocity is to throw out the entire
O.T.. That's what I meant by 'necessary'. Where ever that fuzzy line
may be, most of us would put it before Abraham.

The wide swath of history that you refer to, complete with genealogies,
wars, etc. would, I expect, be historical. But I'm not bothered by
discrepancies from one genealogy to another, or other such details that
I feel a need to explain them away. But if you were to demonstrate that
Moses never lived, or that he never led the people of Israel out of
Egypt --- THAT would shake me up quite a bit since it is such a woven
theme throughout the entire Bible, something Israel is commanded to
remember. Whereas Adam, even though his theme could be said to be woven
through the Bible as well, that theme could still be meaningful without
a historical Adam, I don't think the same could be said about Abraham or
Moses, etc. I am probably playing faster and looser with scripture
here than I ought to be, in which case I'll be happy to accept correction.

--merv

I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met.
--Steven Wright

Randy Isaac wrote:

> Good question, Merv, and I think you've received some good responses
> already. We don't have good data on demographics within the ASA. It
> would be very interesting to know. I do get the impression from
> personal interactions that there's a pretty broad spectrum of beliefs
> and on this list we simply don't hear as much from the more
> conservative end. I wish we could sustain a broader balance and
> portray the respect for each other that we proclaim.
>
> As Dave pointed out, everyone is concordistic to some extent and
> accommodationistic to some extent. The issue is which passages we're
> discussing. Usually we share the foundation of the reality of Jesus'
> life, death and resurrection and then vigorously debate Gen. 1-11 and
> related passages. You brought up Jonah, Job, and NT parables. But I
> wonder how you and people on this list consider Gen. 12 through the
> Kings and Chronicles? To what extent are you concordistic with respect
> to these portions of the Old Testament? To what extent is it
> important? I've never researched the archeology and recorded history
> of that period to know the extent of concord that exists. If
> hypothetically such concord were to be shown not to exist, would that
> also be of little or no impact to your faith? You used the intriguing
> phrase "...the necessary historicity in later Genesis...."
>
> Randy
>
> ----- 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.
>
>
>

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 22:45:02 2006