Re: [asa] Question for all the theistic evolutionists

I'd like to just for now dump a link for a Roman Catholic perspective on all
this (my wife is starting to get annoyed, rightly, that I'm getting obsessed
with this discussion again). I'm not Catholic, but I teach at a Catholic
institution, and there are times I think I might be likely to become
Catholic if I weren't so evangelical and Reformed (for me, converting to
something like Catholicism would have the social and family effect of, say,
a Muslim converting to Christianity :-) )

Anyway, here's a wonderful essay on original sin by Edward Oakes in First
Things, which doesn't use the term "accomodation," but shows I think a
deeply historically sensitive and well-rounded heremeneutic relating to how
to understand that doctrine, Gen. 1-2, etc. today:
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3598&var_recherche=original+sin

And here is an interview with Oakes on monogenism that I think proceeds
somewhat along the lines of what I'd been trying to get at with the MRCA
studies: http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=74825

On 3/18/07, Merv <mrb22667@kansas.net> wrote:
>
> Most posts on this thread have been on the offensive against accommodation
> and the defensive replies of the accommodationists. Please allow me to add
> a different strand in the opposite direction into this thread: How far are
> you ("concordists" ) willing to go to defend every straightforward narrative
> found in any Scripture? E.g. Forget the small time floating ax heads &
> such -- those are child's play. Let's skip to the big ones -- the sun
> stationary in the sky. I must admit that I don't know what to do with the
> clear Scriptural claim that Joshua told the sun (and moon) to stand still,
> and they did for "about a day". I don't understand how this could literally
> have happened (it would surely be a candidate from a physicist's point of
> view for the grand-daddy of miracles since creation). But this is a weak
> objection to a miracle, as they can't be understood anyway and this one is
> only different from a floating ax head in its magnitude of physical
> effect. Do I not have proper faith that God can (/will) do anything? This
> isn't a rhetorical question, but a faith struggle for me. As much as I
> hate to agree with Thomas Jefferson about anything theological, I do
> identify with his clearly expressed skepticism towards some claimed
> miracles. Perhaps I am just a weak-kneed accommodationist, and Dick and
> Glenn can bolster my faith by declaring that the Bible states it --
> therefore God did it just as stated and as understood by modern eyes. But
> they also take science and modern knowledge into account, so I am curious
> how their brand of concordism interacts with some of these fantastic claims
> so that I can evaluate if my faith (or possible lack thereof). I'm not
> even sure why I rank some miracles as more "fantastic" than others. But I
> seem to. Some (like the resurrection) are just as fantastic, but have a
> lot more recorded witnesses and significance of centrality. But
> either/or type thinking won't allow me to make the distinction between a
> "central" miracle and a "peripheral" one that only merits a couple verses
> mention. After all, to the concordist it is all God-breathed and
> indisputable. Eager for your thoughts.
>
> --merv
>
> Jack wrote:
>
> ********
> Jack wrote:
> >There are of course different views on this, but I think the most
> consistent "accommodation" view, gets rid of a historical
> >Adam altogether.
>
> Which goes to my basic objection with accommodation. It makes everything
> untrue and then proclaims it worthy of worship--a rather silly approach in
> my view and it confirms the question someone asked about how far
> accommodation is willing to go in making things in Scripture untrue--to
> which I responded, mighty far.
>
>
>
> It doesnt make "everything" untrue. In a sense accomodation doesnt make
> anything "untrue" it just makes the scriptures say something different than
> you say it says. And the ahistoric interpretation does not apply to all of
> scripture, and not even all of Genesis, just the first 11 chapters, and some
> other passages. But the non-verifiable facts in the ahistoric passages,
> does not mean that it is untrue, it is just not historic, or verfiable with
> scientific methods.
>
> You are the one demanding this of the text. Why does an ahistoric passage
> have to be verifiable for it to be meaningful?
>
> But all of the scriptures point to truth of the risen Christ. That is
> what you have to hang your hat on. If that is proven incorrect, then
> everything else is meaningless.
>
> Who asked the question about how far accomodation is willing to go? Was
> that on this list or somewhere else? I am honestly interested in that
> answer.
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Mar 18 21:06:40 2007