RE: [asa] Saving Darwin: What theological changes are required?

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of gordon brown
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 9:00 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Saving Darwin: What theological changes are required?

The Old Testament writers did not teach their cosmology since it would have
been assumed that their readers already accepted it, but they used it in the
process of making other points that transcended any particular cosmology.
This is what we have been calling accommodation. I think it would be harder
to make the same sort of conclusion about Paul's writing if his argument
depends on something you consider to be in error.

Gordon Brown (ASA member)

By the same token, we could take your statement about the OT writers and
apply it to Paul. "Paul did not teach his views on anthropology since it
would have been assumed that his readers already accepted it, but he used it
in the process of making other points that transcended any particular
anthropology." If the OT writers' cosmology was in error (as compared with
modern scientific standards), and if Paul's anthropology was also in error
(compared with the same standards), then I don't see the difference. Either
both or neither (or perhaps, one or the other) can be accepted as
accommodations, through which the Holy Spirit is still able to teach
transcendent truth.

This doesn't mean that we have to capitulate the whole theological tradition
of Christianity, or accept modern science and materialist presuppositions
entirely, but there doesn't seem to be a good justification for accepting
accommodation in one case and rejecting it in the other without other
considerations coming into to play.

Jon Tandy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jun 11 11:39:24 2008