Re: [asa] Adam and the Fall

Gregory,

I wonder if you would consider it "inflexible" and feminist if I said "Eve
never actually sinned, because Eve never actually existed". Denis often
uses "Adam and Eve", and seems to use Adam alone mostly in reference to the
Pauline passages (Romans especially) where Paul does not bring up Eve.

I think the breakthrough Denis presents is two-fold.
First, he shows the modern debate to be the result of deep-seated
concordism. We need to let it go. Denis gives many examples of how
concordism cannot be found in the biblical account and points out that the
remaining vestiges need also to be given up, especially in light of the huge
pastoral implications that this issue has.
Second, he says that Adam and Eve are the result of an ancient understanding
of origins, just as the firmament is the result of an ancient understanding
of cosmology. Most evangelical scholars who accept evolution still try to
fit an Adam and Eve into the picture to satisfy our need for concordism.
This is, according to Denis, as unacceptable as trying to force big bang
cosmology to fit a hard dome with waters above it into our understanding of
the earth.

I agree that Denis' language is at times forceful, but I think it is
desperately needed to jump start us out of the rut that we evangelicals have
been caught in for a century or so. I do not think that it is inflammatory,
or simply controversial for the sake of being controversial. In fact, if
you compare it to some of the writings from many of the YEC's or IDT folks
it is an incredibly pastoral approach.

Leaving man's origins as an open question is attractive, and Denis is not
averse to using the word "mystery" to describe the gradual polygenistic
origin of mankind. Trying to fit Adam and Eve into the picture is not
actually it an open question, but is trying to satiate our need for
historical concordism.

Always,
Bethany

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>wrote:

> As well, at a glance, I'll stand as third out of three to make the call
> against Denis Lamoureux's gaping swing that "Adam never actually existed,"
> "Adam never actually sinned" and "Adam was never actually judged by God to
> suffer and die," full stop.
>
> The problem with the quoted text is not as much a question of 'evidence'
> and 'reasoning' or 'proof' as it is an example of an exclusivist
> communication style. It appears to be inflexible and chauvinistic (by which
> I mean heavy-handed interpretation, though maybe it was not meant to appear
> that way, since Denis has crossed-over from YEC to OEC, to his current
> position of EC). Denis' style thus seems to be, as Ian suspects of it,
> inflammatory, even for a biblical non-literalist such as myself.
>
> This is perhaps why he took out the label 'evangelical' from the earlier
> proposed title of the book, which nevertheless, I am glad to hear is
> published. I support Denis' work and fully agree with Ian that "Denis has
> something substantive to say to us as we struggle to faithfully respond to
> God's revelations of himself through the book of God's word and the book of
> God's works." I'd be glad to hear from either Ian or David O. or others who
> have a copy of the book to suggest what the 'significant break-throughs'
> might be.
>
> People have been arguing against a 'strictly literalist treatment of
> Genesis' for years and years. Leaving the question of 'man's/Adam's origins'
> open rather than closed (e.g. "Adam never existed") is attractive in some
> ways that either choosing a purely naturalistic-physicalistic human
> origin(s) scenario (but this is not Denis?) or a special
> creation/interventionist one (i.e. Denis' former YEC position) lacks in
> nuance and respect for myth and mystery.
> It may be, and I speculate here based on earlier texts by Denis, that the
> main problem is not with his biological, dental or theological knowledge
> perspectives, but rather with his philosophy of history. Surely Moorad will
> have some comments to make on this thread about the limitations of science,
> as they overlap with philosophy and theology. And, of course, with respect
> to operational and historical explanations and descriptions.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 12 16:03:54 2008