John, I used to say stuff sort of like this. But it isn't really accurate.
Maybe it reflects the uninformed, populist view in the pew, or some more
extreme statements, but it doesn't fairly reflect evangelical theology as a
whole.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the Bible is the literal word of God." Are
you referring to inerrancy? If not, what do you mean? Does the Bible only
*become* the word of God as it is received? If so, how is that different
from the classic position about scripture of theological liberalism?
Inerrancy is not equivalent to literalism. Even the Chicago Statement --
which I think is a deeply flawed document -- makes this clear.
Moreover, many thoughtful evangelicals recognize that some sort of
forumlation of inerrancy is important, but not of first importance, and
certainly not related to salvation per se. Read John Stott's "Evangelical
Essentials" and this will become clear. Or read the section on scripture in
Millard Erickson's Systematic Theology.
In addition, most evangelicals who accept inerrancy also accept the
principle of accommodation or some similar hermeneutical principles. See,
for example, Peter Enns' "Inspiration and Incarnation," or John Walton's
commentary on Genesis. Or see Donald Bloesch's "Holy Scripture." Or the
volume of essays entitled "Inerrancy and Common Sense" published by Gordon
Conwell a number of years ago, or "Inerrancy and Hermeneutic" published by
Westminster. Or "The Scripture Principle" by Clark Pinnock. Have you
reviewed all these carefully?
In any event, a hermeneutical question such as "was Adam a real person"
can't be settled with hand waiving about accommodation. Accommodation is a
valid princple, but someone needs to explain where it stops.
On Nov 15, 2007 6:49 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
> George,
>
>
>
> I whole heartedly agree with you that "putting together some concordist
> scheme" is absolutely the wrong way to go about engaging our culture with
> the gospel. That has been what I was presented for all my life and now I am
> convinced that it just doesn't work and a disservice to believers. I now
> think a more allegorical approach to Genesis is what God intended with the
> scriptures.
>
>
>
> However, Dick is right in pointing out that this issue of concordism is a
> "boulder" on the road to Christ. The reason why is that the Central Dogma of
> the Evangelical church is The Bible is the literal Word of God, which leads
> to Christ, which leads to Salvation. And of course Genesis and Adam are an
> integral part of Bible. And I agree that a too literal and fundamental
> interpretation of the Bible does lead to a skewed version of Christianity,
> not the least of which is their schizophrenic view of science.
>
>
>
> But as opposed to some of the more thoughtful traditions like Lutheran,
> this concordism is all I have ever heard in any church that is considered
> evangelical and is doing anything proactively to increase its membership.
> And in fact as you saw from Michael's excerpt of the statement on Inerrancy
> yesterday, it is considered inseparable from the gospel. From my
> perspective there is a one to one correlation between literalism and
> evangelicalism, and it is not negotiable. So this is what gets perpetuated
> and why it is a problem. That may not be your perspective or experience in
> your community but it is mine. I attend a 6000 member Southern Baptist
> church and I think I am the only there who would say what I just did above
> and then there wouldn't even be me there if any of the staff ever read this
> email. In contrast, although they all may have better theology and better
> science as well, I have never met anyone from the Lutheran church that
> wasn't born into it.
>
>
>
> That is why I have been arguing on this list from the beginning is that
> what is needed is an effort to get the true message of science into the
> evangelical church without them perceiving it as compromise and surrendering
> to liberal theology. This includes preserving the doctrine on natural
> revelation and also preserving a rational worldview that acknowledges the
> basic facts of science and coexists with them.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *George Murphy
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 13, 2007 9:26 PM
> *To:* Dick Fischer; ASA
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] ORIGINS: (Adam or a group of Adams?) pseudogenes are
> overwhelming evidence for evolution...?
>
>
>
> The idea that Gen.1-11 is "a boulder" on the road to Christ assumes
> precisely what I am challenging - that one must come to Christ by starting
> with the early chapters of Genesis, & Adam in particular, & work toward
> Christ. We don't. Of course if people have been previously bothered by, &
> have left the faith because of, the notion that they have to accept the
> historicity of Adam &c as essential to Christianity then that problems needs
> to be dealt with somehow. But IMO that's better done by pointing out the
> the historicity of Adam *isn't* essential to Christianity than by putting
> together some concordist scheme. Even if they're convinced of the truth of
> the latter they're still likely to be stuck with a skewed version of
> Christianity in which Adam is of more importance relative to Christ than he
> should be.
>
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
>
> *To:* ASA <asa@calvin.edu>
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 13, 2007 7:31 PM
>
> *Subject:* RE: [asa] ORIGINS: (Adam or a group of Adams?) pseudogenes are
> overwhelming evidence for evolution...?
>
>
>
> Hi George, you wrote:
>
>
>
> >People start with themes like "In search of the historical Adam" or "Who
> was Adam?" instead of viewing matters in light of what the NT says about
> Christ.<
>
>
>
> Simply in terms of what is important and what isn't, accepting Christ
> ranks at the top without question. Whether there was an Adam or wasn't, or
> where and when he may have lived if there was such a fellow, for a believer,
> may be a matter of mere curiosity. So why stir the pot?
>
>
>
> For one thing, truth matters. For another, there are untold millions of
> nonbelievers who feel they needn't bother with a book at all that starts
> with an unbelievable fairy tale. And for those who believe the Bible is
> supposed to be a reliable witness, the Bible can indeed be such witness if
> the first passages of the first book are shown to be reliable.
>
>
>
> Why do millions fall for YEC when we, the intelligentsia, know with
> absolute certainty it can't possibly be true? It is because they believe
> the Bible is true and this is the only way it can be interpreted. An
> historical Adam in the context of human history they can believe in may
> persuade some to escape the clutches of the evil YECmeisters.
>
>
>
> So I for one believe that lining up all the evidence both that which
> confirms the New Testament and that which confirms the Old Testament in the
> long run can have positive benefits. There are many road blocks in the way
> of potential believers. Genesis 1-11 can be one giant boulder in the middle
> of the narrow road leading to Christ. This is not to say there aren't
> others as well. But this is one I think can be removed, and why shouldn't
> we spend effort to remove it if we can?
>
>
>
> Dick Fischer
>
> Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
>
> Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
>
> www.genesisproclaimed.org
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *George Murphy
> *Sent:* Monday, November 12, 2007 4:44 PM
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] ORIGINS: (Adam or a group of Adams?) pseudogenes are
> overwhelming evidence for evolution...?
>
>
>
> One execllent theological reason to prefer a fully evolutionary view in
> which *H. sapiens* - & thus Jesus - really is related to chimps & other
> species is that this provides a way of understanding the biblical promises
> that "all things" are saved, reconciled to God &c through the Incarnation.
> I set out this argument a long time ago in a PSCF (then JASA) article
> available at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1986/JASA3-86Murphy.html .
>
>
>
> A major failure in many of these discussions is the failure to approach
> the issues christologically. The usual Evangelical approach is, if I can
> coin a term, adamological.
>
> This is almost exactly 180 degrees wrong. People start with themes like
> "In search of the historical Adam" or "Who was Adam?" instead of viewing
> matters in light of what the NT says about Christ.
>
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
>
> *To:* David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com>
>
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu
>
> *Sent:* Monday, November 12, 2007 3:31 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] ORIGINS: (Adam or a group of Adams?) pseudogenes are
> overwhelming evidence for evolution...?
>
>
>
> Aside from the various other ways in which this particular question is
> causing me angst right now, here is something else that bothers me about
> it. It seems to me that this question presents a particularly thorny issue
> for how and to what extent "science" may be used to intepret scripture vs.
> how and to what extent we need to assert scripture over against a particular
> scientific data point.
>
>
>
> When we consider the age of the earth / universe and the creation "days,"
> it seems to me that it is easier to be flexible. There are any number of
> exegetical questions before we even get to the scientific ones. Moreover,
> messing with the age of the earth / universe involves basic physical
> constants like the speed of light that can't really be messed with under the
> anthropic principle. Finally, the theological issues seem somewhat less
> thorny -- though the question of death before the fall is not a small one.
>
>
>
> When we consider the exegetical issues concerning Adam, IMHO at least,
> there seems to be significantly less flexibility, at least within even a
> moderate "inerrancy" framework. IMHO, without disrespect to those who think
> otherwise, it does too much damage to the doctrine of scripture and to the
> narrative framework of scripture to suggest that the accommodation principle
> -- which I think is a valid principle generally -- goes so far as to render
> these texts essentially non-historical. So for me, this seems to be a place
> in which it might be appropriate to say that, while scripture does not teach
> "science," it does to some extent bear on "history," such that it might be
> appropriate to question the naturalistic assumptions underlying particular
> scientific models.
>
>
>
> In particular, it seems to me that the genetic continuity between humans
> and our presumed chimp ancestors, and population gentics studies based on
> presumed times of divergence and rates of mutation, do not render the
> traditional understanding of Adam impossible. They render it difficult, and
> perhaps unlikely, but not *impossible*. It is *possible* that God
> specially and miraculously created Adam using pre-existing hominid genes;
> and it is *possible* that God caused imago Dei man to be dispersed
> geographically in such a way that the histocompatibility diversity we
> observe today happened faster than the models assumed. This does not
> violate any fundamental physical constant such as the speed of light. It is
> a different kind, or at least a different degree, of question than the age
> of the earth.
>
>
>
> At the same time, we can tentatively propose some other scenarios. But in
> my view, it's unfair to equate some push-back here with "YEC thinking."
> Perhaps, like the wine at Cana, this really is a place at which
> methodologial naturalism, without the illumination of scripture, does not
> really reflect the truth of history.
>
> On Nov 12, 2007 3:03 PM, David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Actually, evolution does not absolutely rule out a single couple as
> ancestral to humanity. Glenn Morton's model develops this line of
> thinking. It posits some rather long gaps in the genealogies and has
> other difficulties, but then there are difficulties in any approach to
> reconciling the scientific data and Genesis 1-11. It is much easier
> to have rapid change in a small population. Any particular mutation
> important to making humans human would have its origin in a single
> individual. Many other variant scenarios with some sort of historical
> Adam are also possible.
>
>
> --
> Dr. David Campbell
> 425 Scientific Collections
> University of Alabama
> "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
>
>
> 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 Thu Nov 15 19:45:55 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 15 2007 - 19:45:56 EST