Re: [asa] Adam and the Fall

Bethany

Thanks for those comments. For myself I am one step to the right of Denis L and to the left of Denis Alexander. To me neither has made a breakthrough as what both have said has been said by theologians since the late 19th century and for many evangelicals in Britain in the 70s Denis L would not have been radical.

However with the increase of concordism on both sides of the pond in the last 50 years and the rise of YEC, old tested views like the two Denis's now seem much more radical and liberal - at least in Britain.

In the 70s I remember being taught doctrine by evangelicals who stressed that Adam was not historical and no evangelical student objected to that. At that time very few in Britain accepted YEC and those who didn't were not very concordist. A conservative view among evangelicals was to insist on some kind of weak concordism and a historical Adam.

I realise that this is very different form the American evangelical scene

Michael
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Bethany Sollereder
  To: gregoryarago@yahoo.ca
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu ; Schwarzwald
  Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 9:03 PM
  Subject: 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 16:23:24 2008